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.

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.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC – State challenged acquittal of respondent in a road accident case resulting in death of one person and simple injuries to another – Trial Court acquitted respondent by granting benefit of doubt – Held: Appellate Court must be slow to interfere unless findings are perverse – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – No ground made out for interference [Paras 1, 9, 14–15].

Rash or Negligent Act – Ingredients of Section 304-A IPC – Mere accident or hitting from behind not sufficient – Prosecution must prove that act was rash or negligent and was proximate cause of death – Presumption of negligence cannot automatically be drawn against the driver [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Injured Witness – PW-1 failed to depose that vehicle was driven rashly or negligently – No statement regarding high speed, exact speed, lane of driving, or manner of driving – Identification of accused alone insufficient to establish culpable rashness or negligence [Paras 10–11].

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Limited Application – Presumption of negligence arises only where nature of accident and surrounding circumstances unequivocally indicate negligence – Not applicable merely because a vehicle hit another from behind [Paras 6–7].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Place of Recording Statement – PW-1 stated his statement was recorded at police station, whereas IO claimed it was recorded at the spot – Serious doubt created regarding reliability of prosecution version [Para 12].

Investigation – Deficiencies – No photographs of spot – No evidence of skid marks or dragging marks – Site plan did not show dragging of motorcycle nor bore signature of eyewitness – Exact point of impact not established – Lapses weaken prosecution case [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Plausible View – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and well-reasoned – Where two views are possible, appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because it prefers another – Acquittal rightly sustained [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC upheld – Personal bond cancelled and surety discharged.

Railways Act – Offence under Section 143(1)(b) – Illegal Sale of Railway Tickets – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner apprehended by RPF while in possession of two Tatkal tickets not in his name – Unable to offer explanation for possession – Witness testimony of RPF officials and PRS clerk corroborated seizure and conduct – Trial and appellate court upheld conviction – Held: No illegality in conviction – Proper seizure and procedure followed – Conviction sustained [Paras 5–8, 12].

Criminal Revision – Sentence Modification – Leniency – Petitioner a daily wage earner with family responsibility – Conviction dates back to 2012 – No material infirmity found in trial or appellate judgments – Considering passage of time and mitigating factors, sentence modified – Held: Imprisonment of two months set aside – Sentence reduced to fine of ₹10,000/- with default RI for 3 months [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Procedure – Seizure Without Independent Witness – Legal Validity – Petitioner argued seizure illegal due to absence of independent witnesses – RPF explained public unwillingness to participate – PRS official corroborated seizure and signed seizure list – Held: Absence of independent public witnesses not fatal when procedural integrity maintained and official testimony corroborates seizure [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility – Petitioner claimed extra-judicial confession inadmissible as made in presence of police – However, independent corroboration through seizure materials and ticket records – No contradiction elicited during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses – Held: Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Conviction under Section 143(1)(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 upheld – Sentence of simple imprisonment for two months set aside – Petitioner directed to pay fine of ₹10,000/- within two months – In default, to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – House Trespass – Rioting – Trial Court Conviction – High Court Reappreciation – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427 and 452 r/w 149 IPC – Revision by de facto complainant against acquittal for offences under Sections 354, 395 and 511 r/w 376 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 5, 47].

Criminal Trial – Delay in FIR – Effect – Alleged incident on 15.01.2001 – FIR recorded only on 16.01.2001 evening – Evidence showed complainant visited hospital and police station earlier but complaint lodged after discussions with relatives and political leaders – Held: Delay unexplained – Possibility of embellishment and coloured version could not be ruled out [Paras 25–27, 46].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Reliability – Sole reliance on evidence of PW1 (victim), PW2 (son) and PW5 (minor daughter) – Testimony riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements – Independent neighbour witness turned hostile – Held: Evidence not trustworthy for sustaining conviction [Paras 27, 39, 47].

Evidence – Medical and Scientific Evidence – Absence – Medical examination revealed no external injuries on PW1 or PW5 – No semen or spermatozoa detected – Allegations of sexual assault and attempt to rape not corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Prosecution version weakened [Paras 18–19, 47].

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – Dock Identification – Mandatory Requirement – Witnesses failed to properly identify accused in dock – Inconsistent identification during testimony – Identification not recorded in accordance with law – Held: Identification evidence unreliable [Paras 30–31].

Criminal Trial – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Elder daughter of PW1 and neighbour’s wife, both crucial witnesses, not examined – No satisfactory explanation for withholding material witnesses – Held: Prosecution case suffers from serious deficiency [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Group Rivalry – Political Enmity – Evidence disclosed communal riot, political murders and rival group clashes in locality – Defence evidence showed contemporaneous bomb blast incident and hospitalisation of second accused – Prosecution suppressed material facts – Held: Accused entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt [Paras 39–45].

Criminal Revision – Scope – De facto Complainant – Challenge to Acquittal – Revisional court cannot interfere unless findings are perverse – Trial court’s acquittal based on appreciation of evidence – Held: No ground to interfere with acquittal of remaining accused or with acquittal for sexual offences [Paras 5, 47].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427 and 452 r/w 149 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges and set at liberty – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 354, 395 and 511 r/w 376 IPC confirmed [Paras 47].

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.

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Forged Petition – Writ petition filed in the name of Adity Shivcharan Rathod found to be unauthorized and based on forged documents – Police investigation revealed petitioner had no knowledge of the case and disowned the documents – Court held filing of such petition amounts to fraud on the court [Paras 2, 10–13, 17].

Legal Ethics – Misconduct by Advocates – Investigation Ordered – Counsel named in the petition traced and found to have accepted cases through a third-party advocate – Court directed Bar Council of India to investigate professional misconduct of involved advocates – Emphasized lawyers’ duty as officers of the court and custodians of justice [Paras 18–22].

Judicial Process – Fraud on Court – Filing of multiple petitions in different names using identical documents and fabricated claims regarding property ownership – Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) 6 SCC 416 – Held: No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud – Court must protect its process from abuse [Paras 6–8, 18].

Police Investigation – Aadhaar Misuse and Forged Documents – DCP (South-East) filed status report confirming unauthorized use of petitioner’s identity – FIR directed to be lodged – Investigation to continue against all persons involved, including tracing of advocate named as intermediary [Paras 12–16].

Direction to Statutory Authorities – Bar Council of India directed to trace advocate Mr. Suraj Singh and examine involvement of Ms. Awanitika – Liberty granted to coordinate with police – MCD directed to act as per order of Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) dated 27/10/2025, staying action on impugned construction [Paras 19–24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petition found to be filed fraudulently without authorization – Matter referred to police and Bar Council of India for investigation and appropriate legal action – Directions issued for continued investigation, filing of FIR, and professional misconduct inquiry [Paras 16, 19–22, 25].

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].

Default Bail – NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of Investigation Period – Petitioner arrested on 15.05.2025 – Statutory period of 180 days expired on 11.11.2025 – Special Court granted extension of 120 days on 31.10.2025 on report of SPP – Accused neither produced physically nor virtually and no notice given at the time of consideration of extension – Held: Non-production and absence of notice is a gross illegality affecting personal liberty under Article 21 – Extension order unsustainable – Indefeasible right to default bail accrued to the petitioner [Paras 30–32, 45–48, 54–58].

Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Section 187 BNSS – Nature of Right – Default bail is a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 21 and not a mere procedural formality – Continued detention beyond statutory period without a valid extension is illegal [Paras 36–41].

NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of Time – Mandatory Compliance – Public Prosecutor’s report must indicate progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention – Compliance also requires affording the accused an opportunity to oppose the extension – Failure vitiates the extension order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Notice to Accused – Extension of Custody – Physical or Virtual Production Mandatory – Accused must be informed that application for extension is being considered – Mere production for judicial remand on the same day does not amount to valid notice – Absence of accused is not a curable irregularity but a violation of fair procedure under Article 21 [Paras 46–48, 51–53].

Judicial Custody – Same Day Production – Distinction – Order recording that accused was “in JC” does not establish presence at the time of hearing of extension application – Record must reflect production or participation of accused when extension is considered [Paras 51–53].

Default Bail Application – Erroneous Rejection – Trial Court rejected default bail on ground that extension had already been granted – Held: Since extension itself was illegal, rejection of default bail could not be sustained – Right to default bail revived automatically on expiry of 180 days [Paras 55–57].

Relief – Orders Set Aside – Extension order dated 31.10.2025 and order dated 13.11.2025 rejecting default bail quashed – Petitioner held entitled to default/statutory bail – Bail granted on conditions including furnishing of bond and surety – Petition allowed [Paras 58–60].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 31.10.2025 granting extension of investigation and order dated 13.11.2025 rejecting default bail set aside – Petitioner granted default/statutory bail subject to conditions.