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].

Civil Law – Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC  – Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Fabrication – Plaintiff sought to restrain enforcement of three impugned Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs) allegedly executed in 2019, claiming they were fabricated using blank signed papers – Plaintiff produced email exchanges and bank certificates showing that cheques mentioned in the MOAs did not exist on the purported date of execution – Court found significant inconsistencies between terms of MOAs and contemporaneous email records including a draft MOU offering 18% simple interest, whereas impugned MOAs imposed 2.5% compound interest per month – Held: Prima facie, MOAs appear fabricated and manufactured later – Injunction granted restraining defendants from enforcing MOAs [Paras 15–25, 27]

Contract Law – Fraud and Coercion – Documentary Evidence – Plaintiff alleged coercion in execution of MOAs and presented supporting evidence including bank statements and contemporaneous correspondence – Held: Bank-issued certificates confirming issuance dates of cheque books post-date MOAs and contradict recitals therein – Court found no reason to doubt genuineness of these certificates – Strong prima facie case made out that MOAs were backdated and fabricated to initiate coercive legal proceedings [Paras 21–25]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Defendants had initiated criminal complaints under Section 138 NI Act based on MOAs and dishonoured cheques allegedly secured through fraud – Court observed that continued reliance on MOAs to support prosecution may cause irreparable injury to plaintiff – Interim protection warranted to preserve status quo and prevent misuse of allegedly fabricated instruments [Paras 26–27]

Interim Relief – Principles – Balance of Convenience – Plaintiff demonstrated prima facie case and risk of irreparable harm – Balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief – Observations held to be limited to interim stage and not binding at final trial [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Application allowed – Defendants restrained from acting upon or enforcing the following three MOAs till final adjudication of the suit:

(a) MOA dated 20.03.2019 between plaintiff and defendant no.1 (Rs. 15,00,000/-)

(b) MOA dated 17.08.2019 between plaintiff and defendant no.1 (Rs. 1,15,00,000/-)

(c) MOA dated 17.08.2019 between plaintiff and defendant no.3 (Rs. 40,00,000/-)

– Interim injunction granted; suit listed for further proceedings on 11.02.2026 before the Joint Registrar.

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.

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 Law – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Timing – Accused sought production of company records to assist in answering CBI queries during investigation into bank fraud – Records handed over to Resolution Professional during insolvency proceedings – Held: Section 91 can be invoked at investigation stage, but discretion lies with court – Where accused is already being confronted with the documents during interrogation, no necessity for court to direct production – Petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. held premature and misconceived [Paras 26–28, 34, 41–42].

Investigation – Right of Accused – Fairness – Petitioner claimed right to fair investigation under Article 21 – Argued that inability to access documents impaired ability to respond – Held: Accused is only required to cooperate and may state inability to recall facts due to lapse of time – No obligation on prosecution to supply documents before filing charge sheet – IO advised to give sufficient time to peruse old or voluminous records if required [Paras 30, 33, 36, 43].

IBC Proceedings – Consequence of CIRP – Petitioner’s claim that documents were with Resolution Professional post-CIRP under IBC – Held: Petitioner cannot compel production from third parties during investigation where documents already available to investigating agency – Accused may procure documents independently or after filing of charge sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C. [Paras 4, 31–32, 37].

Judicial Discretion – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Held: Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. lies at court’s discretion – Test is whether document is necessary or desirable at that stage – Special Judge rightly held that production not necessary at present – No perversity or illegality found in impugned order [Paras 27, 42, 44].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Petitioner relied on Om Prakash Sharma, Satish Mehra, and Nitya Dharmananda – Held: These decisions pertain to post-charge sheet stage or discharge proceedings – Not applicable to present case involving ongoing investigation [Paras 39–40].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 upheld – Court holds that Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be used by accused during investigation to compel production of documents already with investigating agency – However, Investigating Officer directed to grant adequate time to accused when confronting him with voluminous or old records, to ensure fair investigation.

Succession Law – Probate – Will proved genuine but probate denied – Xerox copy of Will dated 22.01.1996 propounded by husband of testatrix – Allegation that original Will was stolen by appellant – Trial court accepted genuineness of Will based on attesting witness testimony and consistent evidence – However, probate dismissed due to concealment of fact that property had already been sold by original petitioner – Substituted petitioner did not challenge dismissal – Held: Execution of Will proved, but no interference warranted with dismissal of probate due to suppression of material facts [Paras 1, 8, 13–18]

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Section 65(c) – Requirements for admissibility of copy of lost Will – Petitioner alleged original Will was stolen by son – No direct proof of theft produced, but complaint filed and consistent narrative maintained – Held: Case fell under Section 65(c) – Copy admissible – Attesting witness testimony credible and unshaken – Trial court justified in treating Will as genuine despite absence of original [Paras 15–17]

Indian Succession Act – Section 237 – Probate of Copy of Lost Will – Court reiterated that probate of copy is permissible where original lost or destroyed by accident or other unintentional means – Allegation of theft by son, along with prior consistent complaint, sufficient in circumstances – Will admitted to be in existence through conduct of objector, who attested subsequent Will referencing it – Held: Pre-conditions under Section 237 satisfied – Genuineness of Will established [Paras 13, 17]

Conduct of Objector – Estoppel by Conduct – Objector and his wife attested subsequent Will executed by father in 2004 acknowledging title through 1996 Will – Later challenged genuineness of 1996 Will only after cancellation of 2004 Will – Court held such conduct undermines credibility of objection – Testimony of attesting witness (PW-1) found reliable – Objector’s shifting position discredited [Paras 10, 17]

Procedural Law – Suppression of Material Facts – Dismissal of Probate Petition – Original petitioner sold property during pendency of probate proceedings without disclosure to court – Trial court rightly dismissed petition for suppression – Substituted petitioner failed to challenge such dismissal – Held: No interference warranted with trial court’s decision to deny probate despite Will being held genuine [Paras 8, 18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Execution and genuineness of Will upheld – Dismissal of probate petition due to suppression of material facts by original petitioner sustained – No interference warranted – Pending applications also dismissed.

Civil Law – Right of Way – Agreement to Create Easement – Unregistered Document – Appellant sought injunction against obstruction of a passage allegedly created through an agreement dated 13.03.1988 – Trial court and first appellate court dismissed suit holding the agreement inadmissible for want of registration – High Court upheld that agreement created and extinguished rights in immovable property with specific valuation (Rs. 20,000/- damages clause), thus attracting Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act – Held: Since document was unregistered and valuation threshold crossed, it could not be read into evidence – Rights under agreement not enforceable [Paras 20-22].

Registration Act – Section 17(1)(b) – Test of Valuation – High Court applied twin conditions for compulsory registration: whether rights in immovable property were created/limited/extinguished, and whether the value exceeded ₹100 – Held: Agreement created reciprocal rights of passage and imposed a ₹20,000 compensation clause for breach – Thus, value of rights created was determinable and above threshold – Registration was mandatory – Ex.P1 inadmissible [Paras 14-22].

Limitation – Mandatory Injunction – Suit Not Barred – Trial court had dismissed suit as barred by limitation – High Court reversed this finding – Held: Suit for mandatory injunction, though not governed by specific article, falls within residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Limitation is 3 years from accrual of cause – Since alleged encroachment occurred in 2001 and suit filed within months, suit was within limitation [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Revenue Records – Presumption of Truth – Appellant relied on jamabandis and khasra girdawaris showing ‘rasta’ entries – Court noted revenue entries do carry presumption of correctness – However, presumption rebutted by absence of action to enforce rights, conflicting witness depositions, and lack of other corroborative evidence – Held: Concurrent findings that agreement was not acted upon not interfered with – Conduct of plaintiff (e.g., inaction against co-party Iqbal Singh who blocked path) weighed against claim [Paras 26-30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Punjab Courts Act – High Court reiterated that second appeals in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh are governed by Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, allowing reappreciation of evidence where lower courts’ findings are perverse or based on misreading – However, findings in this case found to be reasonable and supported by record [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Agreement held compulsorily registrable and inadmissible – Suit not barred by limitation, but failed on merits – Concurrent findings upheld – Pending applications also disposed of.

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – Quantum of Compensation – Appeal against award granting Rs.1,73,100/- for death of deceased aged 50 years – Claimants sought enhancement on ground of incorrect assessment of income and non-application of settled principles – Held: Award liable to be modified applying correct minimum wages, future prospects, multiplier and conventional heads [Paras 1, 9–10, 18–19].

Income Assessment – Skilled Worker – Mason – Minimum Wages – Tribunal erred in treating deceased as unskilled labour – Mason held to be skilled worker – Monthly income reassessed at Rs.10,000/- on basis of prevailing minimum wages – Reassessment justified [Para 9].

Future Prospects – Addition Mandatory – Deceased aged 50 years – As per Pranay Sethi, 25% addition applicable – Tribunal erred in granting no future prospects – Correction made [Para 10].

Deduction towards Personal Expenses – Dependents – Only sons as claimants – Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure held appropriate – Tribunal erred in making no deduction [Para 17].

Multiplier – Age of Deceased – Non-Application by Tribunal – Deceased aged 50 years – Multiplier of 13 applicable as per Sarla Verma – Tribunal’s failure corrected by appellate court [Para 18].

Consortium – Parental Consortium – Major and Married Sons – Entitlement – Tribunal erred in denying compensation to major sons – Held: Major, married and even earning sons are legal representatives entitled to compensation – Reliance placed on Birender, Magma General Insurance, Jitender Kumar and Seema Rani – Parental consortium of Rs.48,400/- each granted to three sons [Paras 11–16, 19].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses – Standardisation – Loss of estate reduced to Rs.18,150/- – Funeral expenses enhanced to Rs.18,150/- in line with Pranay Sethi escalation principle [Para 18–19].

Interest – Enhanced Compensation – Rate – Interest awarded @ 9% per annum on enhanced amount from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Delay period excluded – Reliance placed on Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara and R. Valli [Para 20].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 8 days condoned – Claimants gave up interest for delayed period – Application under Section 5 Limitation Act allowed [CM Order Paras 1–3].

Relief – Award Modified – Total compensation reassessed at Rs.14,81,448/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.13,08,348/- awarded over and above Tribunal award – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount with interest within two months – Appeal allowed [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 08.02.2019 modified – Compensation enhanced to Rs.14,81,448/- with interest @ 9% p.a. – Directions issued for deposit and disbursement.