Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused – Validity of Summons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – Special Court Empowered – Petitioners were initially cited as witnesses but were summoned as accused after evaluation of the case record – Held: Summoning was within the jurisdiction of the Special Court and does not constitute second cognizance – Offence-based cognizance allows summoning of new accused if material discloses their involvement [Paras 17-23, 26-27].

Sanction – Applicability to Retired Public Servants – Section 19 of PC Act – No Retrospective Effect – Petitioners (except Rajeev Arora) were retired before amendment to Section 19 took effect on 26.07.2018 – Held: Sanction not required for offences taken cognizance of prior to the amendment – Cognizance is of the offence, not the individual – Amendment does not apply retrospectively [Paras 65-68].

Section 197 Cr.P.C. – No Sanction Required for Offences of Cheating and Conspiracy – Held: Acts alleged have no reasonable nexus with official duties – Public servants cannot claim immunity under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for offences like cheating and abetment, as these acts lie outside the scope of official functions [Paras 63-64].

Article 20(3) – Protection Against Self-Incrimination – Not Violated – Petitioners were not accused at the time of their statements – Summons based on independent material – Held: No compulsion or constitutional violation established – Petitioners not entitled to protection under Article 20(3) [Paras 70-73].

Prima Facie Involvement – Deliberate Deferment of Award – Material Indicates Independent Action by Officials – Petitioners Rajeev Arora and D.R. Dhingra failed to act on repeated communications from the Land Acquisition Collector – Files went missing – Held: Prima facie case made out based on record and witness statements [Paras 29-37, 38-43].

Files Processed for Private Developers – Conduct of Petitioners Kulwant Singh Lamba and Dhare Singh – Petitioners involved in routing and clearing of license/CLU files post-deferment – Actions linked to benefit of private developers – Held: Same footing as co-accused – Summoning justified [Paras 44-48].

Disagreement with Police Report – Court Not Bound by IO’s Conclusions – Special Court has power to summon persons not named in chargesheet if prima facie material exists – Held: Magistrate or Special Court is not a post office – Summoning order valid [Paras 49-53].

Direction to Obtain Sanction – Procedural Step, Not a Mandate – Court directed CBI to place material before competent authority – Held: No judicial direction to grant sanction – Legal process under Section 19 of PC Act followed – No encroachment on administrative discretion [Paras 58-62].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – No Legal Error in Special Court’s Summoning Order – At summoning stage, only prima facie case is required – Detailed evaluation not warranted – Held: Trial must proceed – Petitions dismissed [Paras 74-76].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Obviousness Based on Prior Art – Matter Remanded - The patent application claiming novel piperidine compounds with anti-cancer properties was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), referencing compounds from prior art D1 – The Court held that the reasoning was interlinked with non-patentability assessment under Section 3(d) and must be reconsidered after proper identification of the closest known substance – Remanded for fresh evaluation including analysis of enhanced efficacy data [Paras 3–4, 17–19].

Patent Law – Section 3(d) – New Form of Known Substance – Identification of Known Substance Mandatory – Objection Not Sustainable - The Controller failed to identify a specific ‘known substance’ in the prior art D1 against which the claimed compound was assessed – Citing DS Biopharma, the Court ruled that the absence of such identification deprived the applicant of an adequate opportunity to respond with comparative efficacy data – Rejection under Section 3(d) set aside [Paras 12–17].

Decision – Rejection Set Aside – Remanded for Fresh Consideration - The impugned order rejecting the patent was set aside – The matter was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh adjudication after providing the appellant a hearing and addressing all submissions – The fresh order must address patentability with clear identification of the known substance and evaluation of efficacy data [Paras 20–23].

Criminal Law - Custodial Death – Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148, and 120-B of the – Appeal Against Acquittal - Eyewitness Credibility – Acquittal Upheld – The prosecution alleged that the accused, including a police constable, were involved in the murder of an undertrial prisoner after taking him out of judicial custody – The two eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution were found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies, contradictions, delayed disclosure, and intoxication – Held: The trial court rightly disbelieved their testimony and the High Court declined to interfere with the finding [Paras 11–11.2].

Recovery of Weapons – Lack of Independent Corroboration – Evidentiary Gaps – The prosecution relied on the recovery of blood-stained weapons allegedly used in the offence – The High Court found the recoveries were made after 12–13 days, without independent witnesses, and the FSL report did not confirm human blood – Held: Such recoveries were doubtful and could not support the prosecution’s case [Paras 13–14].

Hostile Witnesses and Omissions – FIR and Testimonies Not in Sync – Several witnesses were declared hostile – Key omissions in FIR and contradiction in the statements of family members regarding timeline and threats – Held: Material inconsistencies and lack of credible motive weakened the prosecution’s version significantly [Paras 7–7.6, 15–16].

Scope of Acquittal Appeals – Reversal Only on Perversity or Illegality – The appellate court reiterated that interference in an acquittal is permissible only where the trial court's judgment is perverse, illegal, or ignores material evidence – Held: Trial court’s conclusions were based on plausible appreciation of facts and law, hence no interference was warranted [Paras 17–19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The High Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal of the accused as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – The surviving respondents were directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20–21.2].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Ownership Claim Based on Sale Deeds – Dismissal of Suit – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of 'B' schedule property as part of 'A' schedule property located in Sy. Nos. 28/1 and 28/2 – Trial Court found that western boundaries in the sale deeds consistently mentioned the existence of Makali-Yadalu road – Boundaries in sale deeds and conversion order, along with plaintiffs’ own admissions, confirmed road as the dividing line – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish that 'B' schedule property fell within Sy. Nos. 28/1 and 28/2 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-43, 56-58].

Documentary Evidence – Rectification Deed and Survey Reports – Rectification Rejected – Plaintiffs sought to introduce rectification deed through application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to correct alleged boundary errors – Held: Rectification deed was neither disclosed earlier nor consistent with admitted documents – Vendor’s son (PW2) admitted that existing boundary was correctly described – Rectification application rejected as inadmissible and lacking bona fides [Paras 44-46].

Adverse Possession – Plea by Defendant – Not Established – Defendant claimed title by adverse possession over 'B' schedule property – Held: Defendant failed to plead or prove the essential elements of adverse possession, including specific date of possession, continuity, and hostility – Legal burden not discharged – Adverse possession plea rejected [Paras 47-54].

Pleading and Proof – Power of Attorney Holder as Sole Witness – Presumption Against Plaintiffs – Plaintiffs did not appear as witnesses and only examined GPA holder – Held: Failure of parties to step into witness box raises presumption that their version is untrustworthy – Plaintiffs’ failure to adduce direct evidence held fatal to their case [Paras 46, 57].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit upon correct appreciation of documents, survey sketches, and admissions by plaintiffs’ witnesses – Appellants failed to prove title or encroachment – No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 58].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope under Order VII Rule 11 – Petition for rejection of plaint on ground of undervaluation and jurisdiction dismissed – Trial Court held suit for injunction over trademark “Shahi Sikka” was not barred by law and disclosed cause of action – Held: At threshold, only plaint averments are relevant and no legal bar or undervaluation could be established ex facie [Paras 1-3, 18-22].

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdictional Threshold – Intellectual Property Suits Valued Below ₹3 Lakhs – No Presumption of Bar – Defendant contended that suit must lie before Commercial Court due to IPR subject – Court rejected, citing Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel – Held: Unless specified value crosses ₹3 lakhs and it involves commercial dispute, Commercial Court jurisdiction not attracted – Plaintiff’s valuation accepted in absence of contrary material [Paras 4-15].

Trade Marks Act – Section 142(2) – Bar on Suits for Groundless Threats – No Groundless Threat Alleged – Defendant invoked Section 142(2) but failed to establish that suit for injunction was hit by statutory bar – Court held provisions inapplicable as suit did not allege threat of infringement action but sought direct relief against trademark usage [Paras 3, 5].

Plaint Valuation – Court Fee and Jurisdiction – Presumption in Favour of Plaintiff’s Valuation – No Evident Undervaluation – Court held that in absence of minimum statutory threshold, valuation must be tentatively accepted unless prima facie arbitrary – Defendant failed to show undervaluation or that court lacked jurisdiction [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Discretion – Use of Order VII Rule 11 – Drastic Power to be Exercised Cautiously – Only if Suit Ex Facie Barred by Law or Discloses No Cause of Action – Court reaffirmed that rejection of plaint must be based solely on plaint contents and not defendant's assertions – Held: Trial required for adjudication of factual disputes [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No legal bar or jurisdictional defect found in trial court’s refusal to reject plaint – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 23-24].

Police Service – Dismissal for Absence – Prolonged unauthorized absence from duty – Plaintiff/constable dismissed for remaining absent from duty for extended periods – Departmental inquiry conducted, orders of dismissal confirmed by appellate and revisional authorities – Courts below upheld dismissal, noting absence of valid medical justification and procedural adherence – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Procedural Compliance – Departmental Inquiry – Plaintiff’s claims of procedural lapses in departmental inquiry rejected – Inquiry and subsequent orders found to be in accordance with Punjab Police Rules – Courts emphasized the disciplined nature of police service and necessity for strict adherence to rules – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference – High Court’s jurisdiction in reviewing disciplinary actions – Upheld findings of lower courts absent wanton or arbitrary action by authorities – Precedent from Supreme Court and High Court cited to affirm dismissal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court affirmed – Orders of dismissal from service upheld [Paras 19-20].

Civil Law - Trademark Dispute – Objection to Jurisdiction – Commercial Courts Act Interpretation – Dismissed - Defendant challenged jurisdiction of Trial Court to hear trademark injunction suit on grounds that it should lie before Commercial Court due to nature of IPR dispute – Court held that Commercial Court jurisdiction only arises if suit involves a commercial dispute and the specified value is ₹3 lakhs or more – In absence of such valuation, Trial Court can proceed – Held: No presumption that all IPR cases must be valued above ₹3 lakhs; suit not barred by law [Paras 3–10, 15–16].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Limitations – Application Rejected - Court reiterated that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and can only be exercised if it is evident from the plaint that the suit is barred by law or discloses no cause of action – Held: Since valuation could not be conclusively disputed at threshold and cause of action was pleaded, plaint cannot be rejected [Paras 18–22].

Suit Maintainability – Trade Mark Act Section 142(2) – Not a Bar - Defendant’s claim that suit is barred under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 60 of the Copyright Act was rejected – Court observed that these provisions did not apply to the facts of the present case and cause of action was disclosed on plaint reading – Held: Suit for permanent injunction maintainable before civil court [Paras 4–5, 23].

Valuation in IPR Suits – Plaintiff’s Discretion Accepted – Undervaluation Allegation Rejected - Court reiterated principle that plaintiff as dominus litis has right to value the suit, subject to judicial scrutiny – In absence of material to show deliberate undervaluation, Court to accept plaintiff’s valuation at threshold – Held: Defendant failed to establish undervaluation; plaint valuation accepted [Paras 14, 16–17].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed - Court found no legal ground to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Dismissed revision petition and all pending applications – Suit to continue before Trial Court [Paras 24–25].

Service Law - Termination of Service – Applicability of Natural Justice to Private Employment – Principles Not Attracted - Appellant employed in a private unaided institution terminated with three months’ salary as per employment rules – No statutory or contractual protection against termination without cause – Held: Employer not bound to provide show-cause or personal hearing in such termination – Principles of natural justice inapplicable in contracts of private service [Paras 5.3, 11.3, 13].

Contract of Personal Service – Specific Performance Not Enforceable – Suit for Reinstatement Not Maintainable - The relief sought was essentially for specific performance of contract of personal service barred under Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Held: Claim for reinstatement or mandatory injunction directing continuation of service not legally tenable in private employment [Paras 11.2, 13].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law Raised – Appeal Dismissed - The grounds raised by appellant were factual disputes settled by concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court – No substantial question of law involved under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 12-14].

Limitation – Claim for Arrears of 5th Pay Commission Benefits – Barred by Time - Claim for arrears predating 01.01.1999 held time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Suit filed in 2002 was beyond three years from accrual of cause of action [Para 11.5].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Error in Lower Courts’ Findings - Held: Both trial and first appellate court judgments were legally sound – Appellant’s termination was lawful under contract terms and no substantial legal issue warranted interference – Regular second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law - Foreign Exchange and Penal Law – Applicability of IPC Despite FEMA – No Implied Repeal – Prosecution Valid - Petitioners argued that once FEMA decriminalized foreign exchange violations, they could not be prosecuted under IPC for related acts – Held: IPC offences such as forgery and criminal conspiracy are distinct and independent – Doctrine of implied repeal does not apply – Reaffirmed that FEMA and IPC operate in separate legal domains and prosecution under IPC remains valid [Paras 19–29].

FIR Registration – Based on FEMA Search and ED Complaint – No Requirement of Preliminary Enquiry – FIR Upheld - Petitioners contended FIR based on ED complaint was invalid without preliminary enquiry – Held: FIR disclosed cognizable offences and was not based solely on inadmissible FEMA confessions – Registration mandatory under Lalita Kumari guidelines – No illegality found in police action [Paras 30–36].

Arrest Under PMLA – No Retrospective Application of Arvind Kejriwal Guidelines – Procedural Compliance Established – Arrest Valid - Petitioners challenged ED arrest citing non-compliance with PMLA Section 19(1) and (2) – Held: Petitioners were arrested before 12.07.2024, thus Arvind Kejriwal ruling did not apply retrospectively – ED complied with procedural requirements including timely forwarding to Adjudicating Authority – Arrest upheld [Paras 37–41].

Arrest Memo – Failure to Communicate Specific Grounds – Violation of Prabir Purkayastha – Arrest by Delhi Police Quashed - Delhi Police recorded only general reasons in the arrest memos without disclosing specific roles or incriminating circumstances – Held: Grounds of arrest were not duly communicated in writing – Violates Supreme Court’s mandate – Arrests in FIR set aside; petitioners to be released on bond [Paras 42–48].

Decision – Partial Relief – Arrests by ED Valid – Arrests by Delhi Police Quashed - While dismissing challenge to ED arrests and upholding validity of FIR registration, the Court quashed the arrest by Delhi Police for non-compliance with legal requirements – Directed release of petitioners from custody in the FIR case on personal bond [Paras 49–52].