Contract Law – Breach of Contract – Delay in Performance – Responsibility of Employer – Tender for construction of additional parking facility – Defendants invited tender without obtaining prior permission from Forest Department – Delay caused in handing over workable site – Held: Defendants responsible for delay in execution of work – However, contractor having elected to continue contract without repudiation under Section 55, not entitled to damages [Paras 6].

Contract Law – Supplemental Agreements – Economic Duress – Validity – Contractor compelled to execute multiple supplemental agreements for extension of time and extra works on threat of withholding payments – Trial Court finding that agreements were executed under coercion and not voluntarily – Held: Supplemental agreements vitiated by economic duress and unenforceable [Paras 7–8].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal – Duty of Appellate Court – Trial Court granted decree for multiple monetary claims without proper discussion of evidence – Held: Appellate Court entitled to reappreciate evidence and independently assess each head of claim on merits [Paras 9–10].

Works Contract – Extra Items of Work – Proof and Entitlement – Claim for jungle clearance for second time necessitated due to delay attributable to defendants – Measurement book supported execution – Held: Contractor entitled to payment for second jungle clearance [Paras 11–12].

Works Contract – Approach Road – Excluded Item – Tender conditions expressly excluded liability of department for providing access road – No direction proved for execution as extra item – Held: Contractor not entitled to reimbursement for formation of approach road [Para 13].

Works Contract – Felling and Conveyance of Trees – Rate Determination – Extra item of work – Survey of Forest Department rates showed higher applicable rate – Contractor paid at lower rate – Held: Contractor entitled to differential amount based on prevailing departmental rate [Para 14].

Works Contract – Cutting and Stacking of Timber – Lack of Evidence on Rate – Claim based on bald assertion without supporting material – Held: Claim rightly disallowed [Para 15].

Works Contract – Re-conveyance of Timber – Necessitated by Employer’s Directions – Evidence showed logs required to be shifted from river bed – Rate not specifically fixed – Court adopted reasonable rate – Held: Contractor entitled to proportionate payment [Para 16].

Works Contract – Excavation of Soil / Narikkal – Nature of Soil – Evidence insufficient to prove hard narikkal throughout claimed depth – However, probability of hard soil beyond 30 cm accepted – Held: Contractor entitled to differential rate applicable to hard soil, not hard narikkal [Paras 17–18].

Works Contract – Excess Quantity Claims – Measurement Book Prevails – Claim for additional excavation beyond recorded measurements not substantiated – Held: Claim disallowed where contradicted by measurement records [Para 19].

Works Contract – Slipped Earth – Quantity Dispute – Contractor’s contemporaneous correspondence unrefuted – Held: Total quantity accepted at 10,000 m³, but payable only at admitted rate – Contractor entitled to payment for balance quantity at accepted rate [Paras 20–21].

Works Contract – Blasting of Rock – Extra Item – Commissioner’s report relied upon – Quantity and rate proved – Held: Contractor entitled to amount based on expert assessment [Para 22].

Tender Conditions – Tender Deduction – Applicability to Extra Items – Tender quoted 17.6% below estimated rate – Contract clauses provided application of tender deduction to extra and additional items where rates derivable from schedule – Held: Tender deduction applicable to all allowed claims – Net amount recalculated accordingly [Paras 24–25].

Interest – Rate of Interest – Commercial Transactions – Claim for 18.5% interest declined – Held: Interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter appropriate [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court set aside – Plaintiff held entitled to recover Rs.2,84,110/- after applying tender deduction, with interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter till realisation, payable by first defendant [Paras 25–26].

Rent Control – Eviction for Non-Payment – Deposit of Arrears – Procedural Compliance Mandatory – Tenant’s application to deposit arrears after eviction order under third proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act was rejected – Court held “amount due” includes arrears of rent, interest, and costs – Deposit must be made within 30 days and comply with statutory requirements – Held: Failure to strictly comply disentitles tenant from benefit against eviction [Paras 2–5, 10].

Valid Tender – Requirement to Tender Rent to Landlord – Intimation of Deposit – Following Hans Raj Khimta’s case, Court held that rent must first be tendered to landlord – If refused, then deposited in Court with intimation to landlord within 30 days – In this case, no such valid tender or intimation made – Deposit in Court held invalid [Paras 7, 9].

Strict Compliance under Rent Laws – No Leniency on Procedural Requirements – Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, Court held that benefits under rent laws can only be availed through strict compliance – Equitable considerations or minor shortfalls cannot override express statutory mandates [Paras 6, 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rent Controller's rejection of tenant’s application upheld – No valid tender made – Tenant failed to meet statutory requirements – No interference warranted.

Arbitration – Objection to Award – Limitation – Delay in Filing – Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 – Petition for setting aside arbitral award filed beyond 30-day period from deemed date of knowledge – Supreme Court clarified that limitation began from Court's direction to clear arbitrator's fee, not from notice of filing – Trial court rightly rejected application for condonation of delay – Held: Objection was time-barred – Delay not condonable under Section 5 of Limitation Act in context of Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 9–10, 35–38].

Arbitration – Maintainability of Claim – Locus Standi – Legal Representative – Claims raised by respondent after death of original contractor – Alleged power of attorney holder failed to furnish succession certificate or prove legal status – Appellants contended arbitration proceedings were invalid for want of standing – Arbitrator failed to consider preliminary objection on maintainability – Matter requires judicial scrutiny on appeal [Paras 13–14].

Arbitration Award – Departmental Delay – Claim of Delay in Payment – Award of ₹5.5 Lakhs challenged by appellants – Department argued delay was due to contractor’s fault and extensions were granted – Award based on out-of-contract claims and not supported by contract terms – Arbitrator awarded ₹1 crore with interest without detailing basis – Held: Grounds raised by appellants require consideration – Appeal admitted for final disposal [Paras 15–23].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 of Limitation Act – Inapplicability – Court reaffirmed that delay in filing objection under Section 30 of Arbitration Act cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Relying on precedents including Madan Lal v. Sunder Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1233, and Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd v. Raunaq, AIR 1988 SC 2054 – Held: Procedural bar on filing delayed objections absolute under Arbitration Act, 1940 [Paras 28–33, 38].

Appeal – Admission – Procedural Fairness – Delay Alone Not Sufficient to Defeat Substantive Challenge – Although delay in objection was not condoned, appellants raised substantial legal grounds including jurisdictional error, maintainability, and irregular award – Held: Appeal admitted for final hearing – Delay must not defeat justice [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal admitted for hearing – Delay in filing objection against arbitral award held uncondonable – Application under Section 30 dismissed as time-barred – However, considering merits raised regarding validity and scope of arbitral award, appeal admitted for final adjudication – Matter to be listed on 08.01.2026.

Trademark Law - Infringement - Passing Off - Well-Known Mark - Section 159(5) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Interim Injunction - The use of a deceptively similar mark, even for different services, by a defendant with knowledge of the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark, constitutes infringement and passing off, warranting an interim injunction- The "saving" provision of Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not protect such use if the plaintiff's mark was registered after the 1999 Act and the defendant's adoption is dishonest.

Trademark Infringement - Passing Off - Well-Known Mark - Interim Injunction - The plaintiff, Federal Express Corporation, sought an interim injunction against the defendants, Fedex Securities Private Ltd. & Ors., for using the mark "FEDEX" in their corporate names and domain names, alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its well-known trademark- The defendants argued protection under Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, claiming prior use for financial services before the 1999 Act and distinctiveness from the plaintiff's courier services- Held: The plaintiff established a strong prima facie case- The mark "FEDEX" is a well-known registered trademark- The defendants' adoption of "FEDEX" was dishonest and an afterthought, as their explanation for its origin was implausible and inconsistent- The addition of "Securities" does not negate deceptive similarity- Section 159(5) does not apply as the plaintiff's Class 36 registration was post-1999 Act, and the defendants' use constitutes a "new use" amounting to infringement- The continuous use of a deceptively similar trading name, even for different services, amounts to infringement under the 1958 Act and passing off- Delay or acquiescence cannot be pleaded by dishonest adopters- Balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, and irreparable loss would occur if an injunction is not granted- Interim injunction granted- Paras [1-87]

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 159(5) - Applicability - "Continued Use" - Held: Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is a savings clause that protects the "continued use" of a particular registered trademark that was not an infringement under the 1958 Act- However, this provision does not apply to new uses or where the plaintiff's mark was registered after the commencement of the 1999 Act, especially when the defendant's adoption is dishonest and the use falls under new categories of infringement introduced by the 1999 Act (e.g., dilution, use on business papers)- Paras [69, 71, 72]

Trademark Law - Dishonest Adoption - Equitable Pleas - Delay and Acquiescence - Held: A defendant who dishonestly adopts a trademark with full knowledge of the plaintiff's reputation cannot raise equitable pleas such as delay or acquiescence to deny injunctive relief- The plaintiff's prompt objection to the impugned use further negates any claim of acquiescence- Paras [34, 35, 84]

Trademark Law - Deceptive Similarity - Corporate Name - Held: The use of a phonetically identical word like "FEDEX" as part of a corporate name, even with an additional descriptive word like "Securities," is likely to cause deception and confusion, suggesting a sister concern or agency relationship with the well-known trademark holder- The distinctiveness of the well-known mark is paramount- Paras [74, 80, 83]

Decision: Interim Application allowed- Temporary injunction granted restraining defendants from using "FEDEX" or any deceptively similar mark/name- Operation of judgment stayed for six weeks to allow appellate remedy- Paras [87, 88, 91].

Custodial Violence – Suo Motu PIL on letter alleging illegal arrest and torture – Prima facie inference of custodial beating supported by contemporaneous complaints, photographs and Magistrate’s injury observations – State directed to pay interim compensation of Rs.1,50,000 with recovery from erring officials – Inquiry ordered against medical officer issuing “fit for custody” certificate despite serious injuries – Non-installation of CCTV in police station held as blatant non-compliance of Supreme Court directions [Paras 2-3, 6, 8-9, 26-33].

Public Interest Litigation – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Letter by victim’s wife alleging illegal arrest, torture and threats treated as PIL – Notice issued – SP directed to appear with records and CCTV DVR footage [Paras 2].

Police Accountability – Production of CCTV Footage – Police claim CCTV not installed at concerned police station – Court records the statement and notes systemic human rights concern – DGP interacted and expected to take corrective steps given recurring instances within 48 hours [Paras 3].

Custodial Torture – Prima Facie Assessment – State version that injuries caused in clash with villagers not accepted prima facie – Court relies on detailed complaint addressed to President of India, repeated complaints to authorities, and photographs indicating injuries consistent with custody violence – Held: case prima facie of custodial torture/beating [Paras 6, 8-9].

Arrest/Detention – Medical Treatment Duty – Primary investigation report noted injured accused should have been sent for treatment immediately but were not – Delay/omission treated as gross negligence and unprofessional conduct – Officer-in-charge suspended based on inquiry material [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Scrutiny of Injuries – Magistrate’s Observations Prevail Over Police Certificate – ACGM, Chandil recorded multiple injuries including fracture of both legs and sought explanation from Officer-in-Charge – Court notes mismatch between Magistrate’s observations and hospital certificate describing only bruises and declaring “fit for custody” – Held: certificate appears “managed” – medical officer cannot be exonerated [Paras 26-27].

Medical Negligence/Complicity – Departmental Inquiry Directed – Director, Health Services ordered to hold inquiry into issuance of medical certificate showing minor bruises and fitness for custody despite serious injuries including fractures – Report to be submitted before next hearing [Paras 27, 35-36].

Human Rights – Constitutional Safeguards – Court reiterates Article 21/22 protections and condemns any custodial violence regardless of duration or degree – Relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence including D.K. Basu guidelines and principles against third-degree methods – Emphasizes transparency and accountability in arrests and detention [Paras 14-17, 24-25].

CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Binding Supreme Court Directions – Failure to install CCTV and inability to produce footage criticized – Court holds State has blatantly violated and flouted Supreme Court directions (Shafhi Mohammad / Paramvir Singh Saini line) and cannot justify absence of footage – Time sought by State till 31.12.2025 noted in other proceedings [Para 30].

Compensation – Public Law Remedy for Article 21 Violation – Interim compensation ordered based on prima facie custodial torture and suspension order acknowledging lapses – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 within one week to victim (Tarun Mahto) – Amount to be recovered from erring officials/officers – Clarified that interim compensation will not affect victim’s right to seek additional civil/criminal compensation [Paras 31-32].

Procedure – Further Pleadings and Listing – Counter affidavit directed within four weeks – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 – Copy of order to be sent to Director, Health Services for compliance [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Interim directions issued – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 as interim compensation within one week and recover from erring officials – Director, Health Services to conduct inquiry against concerned medical officer and file report – Counter affidavit to be filed – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 [Paras 32-36].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC – Acquittal on Appeal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for shooting deceased and injuring two others – High Court finds that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to serious contradictions in ocular, medical and scientific evidence – Held: Conviction unsustainable – Benefit of doubt extended – Appellant acquitted [Paras 24–45].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitnesses – Reliability – PW16 and PW19 projected as injured eyewitnesses – Their versions regarding manner of assault, weapon used and nature of injuries materially inconsistent with medical evidence – PW16 claimed gunshot injury with broken teeth but no bullet residue or corroboration found – PW19 alleged assault by pistol butt, whereas medical evidence showed sharp-cut injuries – Held: Injured eyewitnesses not of “sterling quality” and not reliable for sustaining conviction [Paras 19–22, 31–34].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Contradiction with Ocular Testimony – Decisive Role – Medical evidence did not support prosecution version of firearm injuries – Ballistic report conclusively established that bullet recovered from deceased’s skull did not match recovered revolver – Held: Scientific evidence completely demolishes prosecution theory regarding use of firearm by appellant [Paras 24(ii), 29–30, 39–40].

Evidence – Recovery under Section 27, Evidence Act – Evidentiary Value – Revolver allegedly recovered pursuant to disclosure by appellant – However, ballistic evidence ruled out use of recovered firearm in commission of offence – Held: Recovery loses probative value when seized weapon is forensically unconnected with crime [Paras 24(ii), 27, 29–30].

Criminal Trial – Place of Occurrence – Failure to Establish – Prosecution unable to prove precise locus of crime – Site plan did not indicate shops or hotels of parties – No bloodstains, cartridges, bullet marks or forensic traces recovered – Held: Failure to establish place of occurrence creates serious doubt and strikes at root of prosecution case [Paras 24(vi), 36–37].

Criminal Law – Chain of Circumstances – Breaks and Missing Links – No recovery of knife though injuries suggested sharp weapon – No seizure of motorcycles allegedly present – No independent or natural witnesses examined – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Held: Chain of evidence fractured at multiple points, rendering prosecution version unreliable [Paras 23–24, 38, 41].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Benefit of Doubt – Court reiterates that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Where two views possible, one favouring accused must prevail – Held: Prosecution failed to bridge gap between “may be true” and “must be true” – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 25–28, 42–45].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 06/09/2017 and 07/09/2017 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 IPC – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC.

Suit for Recovery - Insurance – Bankers Indemnity Policy – Loss Due to Employee Misconduct – Claim Denied for Failure to Prove Actual Loss and Violation of Policy Terms – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff bank filed suit seeking indemnity under BIPs for losses caused by alleged embezzlement and misappropriation by bank employee between 2003–2008 – Defendant insurer repudiated claims citing breach of "excess clause", failure to report within retroactive period, and non-maintenance of “dual control” – Court held plaintiff failed to prove actual losses during insured period and failed to substantiate audit findings with primary evidence – Mere production of audit summary insufficient to establish loss – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to claim under policy [Paras 28–48].

Contract of Insurance – Burden of Proof – Terms Must Be Proven – Failure to Substantiate Claims with Evidence – Plaintiff’s Reliance on Audit Report Not Enough – Court found no conclusive proof that alleged acts of embezzlement fell within policy coverage – Special audit report relied upon by plaintiff was not supported by underlying documents or primary evidence – Held: Loss not established in accordance with law, claim fails [Paras 46–47].

Insurance Law – Retroactive Period of Cover – Loss Not Discovered Within Permissible Time – Claim Rightly Rejected – Claim for loss under 2003–2004 policy filed after expiry of six-month retroactive discovery period – Court upheld insurer’s repudiation as per policy clause barring claims discovered beyond permissible timeline [Paras 39–41].

Insurance – Excess Clause – Small Claims Below Threshold Not Recoverable – Defendant insurer rightly denied multiple claims on grounds that individual losses were below ₹50,000 threshold under “excess clause” – Such clause held valid and enforceable [Paras 35–37].

Insurance Policy – Alleged Dual Control Breach – No Proven Applicability – Defendant Failed to Prove Clause Formed Part of Contract – Defendant’s claim that loss not indemnifiable due to lack of dual control dismissed – Court held dual control clause not proved to be part of agreed terms – Even if applicable, alleged acts of employee did not fall within scope of clause [Paras 42–44].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to indemnity under the Bankers Indemnity Policies – No order as to costs [Paras 48, 54–55].

Criminal Contempt – Forgery and Impersonation – Fabricated Court Filings – Conviction – Accused filed a statement of objections purportedly on behalf of Union of India by forging the signature and affidavit of the Central Government Standing Counsel – Counsel categorically denied preparing or filing the objections and disowned the affidavit – Held: Filing forged pleadings and impersonating counsel amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and constitutes criminal contempt [Paras 1–2, 11–14].

Contempt of Courts Act – Section 2(c) – Interference with Administration of Justice – Accused personally served forged statement of objections on opposite counsel and filed the same before the Court – Evidence of Assistant Registrar, Oath Commissioner and Advocate witnesses corroborated fabrication – Held: Conduct squarely falls within definition of criminal contempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Suo Motu Contempt – Procedure – Framing of Charges – Charges framed after detailed consideration by coordinate Bench – Accused given full opportunity to contest proceedings and lead evidence – Principles of natural justice complied with [Paras 2–4, 6].

Evidence – Oath Commissioner and Witness Testimony – Signature Mismatch – Oath Commissioner testified that signatures in oath register did not tally with genuine signature of the Central Government Counsel – Advocate witness identified accused as person who attempted service of forged objections – Held: Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 12–14].

Defence of Accused – Plea of Assistance to Counsel – Rejected – Accused claimed he merely assisted counsel in filing objections – No documentary or electronic evidence supporting authorisation – Counsel entered appearance only later and expressly denied preparation or filing – Defence found false and untenable [Paras 10–13].

Sentencing – Criminal Contempt – Lack of Remorse – Accused showed no regret and persisted in allegations against Judges and counsel – Gravity of offence and impact on judicial process considered – Held: Custodial sentence warranted [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Accused convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- – Accused directed to be taken into custody forthwith – Conviction warrant ordered to be issued – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Rent Control – Arrears of Rent – Valid Tender – Section 14(2)(i), Third Proviso – Compliance Mandatory – Petitioner-tenant sought to avoid eviction by depositing arrears of rent post-eviction order dated 14.10.2024 – Application for deposit made on 08.11.2024 by bank draft payable to court – Held: No valid tender shown – No evidence of prior tender to landlord or intimation of court deposit within 30 days – Rent not deposited in landlord’s name nor proper notice given – Rejected as non-compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 8–9]

Statutory Compliance – Strict Interpretation – No Equitable Relief – Delay or Partial Deposit Not Curable – Reiterated: Statutory benefits conferred on tenant under Rent Acts can be availed only through strict compliance – Even shortfall of Re.1 or procedural lapse like absence of notice to landlord vitiates the protection – No leniency permissible – Reliance placed on Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, (2005) 7 SCC 211; Hans Raj Khimta v. Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur, Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 3030 – Procedural compliance is sine qua non for maintainability of appeal and to avoid eviction [Paras 5–7]

Appeal Against Eviction – Condition Precedent – Deposit of Full ‘Amount Due’ Including Rent, Interest & Costs – Court upheld view in Wazir Chand v. Ambaka Rani, 2005 (2) Shim. L.C. 498 and Bilasi Ram v. Bhanumagi, 2007 (1) SLC 88 – 'Amount due' under third proviso includes arrears of rent + 9% interest + litigation costs – Without full deposit within 30 days, tenant forfeits statutory protection and eviction becomes enforceable [Paras 3–4, 5]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – No valid tender or compliance with statutory requirements – Eviction order dated 14.10.2024 stands – No interference with Rent Controller’s rejection order dated 17.12.2024 – Pending applications also disposed of.