Property Dispute – Title and boundary dispute over a 15.89 cents of land – Plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of specific plots in the land – Defendants contested the claim – Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, confirming his title and directing boundary fixation – First Appellate Court upheld the decision – Appeal to the High Court challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts – Substantial questions of law framed.[Para 1-10]

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 56 of Kerala Survey & Boundaries Rules, 1964 – Applicability of Rule 56 to recorded areas of fields or sub-divisions – Dispute not categorized as a ‘boundary dispute’ under the Act – Survey results not affecting the right and title acquired by parties through valid title deeds and possession.[Para 15-17]

Possession and Boundary – Narrow strip of land in dispute – Presumption of possession in favor of the plaintiff based on pleadings and evidence – Previous decisions supporting this presumption.[Para 19]

Decision – High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts – Regular Second Appeal dismissed.[Para 20]

Alleged Dowry Death and Murder – Acquittal of Accused - appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents in a case involving the alleged dowry death and murder of Sumalatha, sister of the appellant. The trial court acquitted the respondents, and the appellant seeks to overturn this decision. [Paras 1, 6]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Inconsistencies and Lack of Corroboration - The prosecution's case largely relied on the testimony of PWs 4 to 8, which the trial court found inconsistent and lacking in corroboration. The evidence regarding the alleged dowry demand and the circumstances of Sumalatha's death was deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 11, 20-32]

Dying Declaration – Credibility and Acceptance - The trial court did not accept the alleged oral dying declaration of Sumalatha, finding inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses who claimed to have heard it. [Paras 33-35]

Legal Principles – Appeal Against Acquittal - The principles governing the appellate court's approach in appeals against acquittal were considered, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of the trial court’s judgment. [Paras 15, 37]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed: The High Court found no perversity or improbability in the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused. [Paras 37, Order]

Non-Filing of Written Statement – Striking off Defense – Order dated 06.10.2023 by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, in CS No. 94 of 2021, struck off petitioners’ defense due to non-filing of written statement within 90 days from the service date. [Para 1]

Petitioners' Ex Parte Proceedings and Subsequent Appearances – Petitioners proceeded ex parte on 21.03.2022, reappeared on 09.01.2023, and had the ex parte order set aside, subject to costs. Multiple adjournments granted for filing the written statement. [Para 2]

Analysis of Procedural Law – Application of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. Supreme Court's interpretation in Kailash vs. Nanhku and others (2005) and subsequent cases – emphasizing the need for expeditious trials, while also acknowledging the courts' discretion for extension beyond the 90-day period in exceptional circumstances. [Paras 5-7, 9-11]

Grant of Last Opportunity to File Written Statement – Petitioners granted one last opportunity to file the written statement by 15.01.2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 to the plaintiff. [Para 12]

Order Modification and Notice to Respondents – Modification of the order dated 06.10.2023. Respondents may approach the court for recalling of this order if dissatisfied. [Para 13]

Decision:

Revision petition allowed; the order dated 06.10.2023 modified; petitioners granted last chance to file the written statement with a cost imposition.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Matters Involving SARFAESI Act – Petition challenging rejection of plaint by lower courts under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Civil Court's jurisdiction barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Exceptions to the bar limited – Debts Recovery Tribunal as the appropriate forum for disputes related to secured assets under SARFAESI Act. [Para 1-9(ii)]

Fraud Allegation in Loan Transactions – Role of Civil Court – Petitioner's claim of forged documents in a loan transaction – Civil Court's limited jurisdiction in cases alleging fraud by secured creditors – Matters primarily for the Debts Recovery Tribunal under SARFAESI Act – Exception when the claim of fraud is patently absurd or untenable. [Para 9(ii)-9(iii)]

Dismissal of Revision Petition – Jurisdictional Bar under SARFAESI Act – Petitioner's revision petition against dismissal of suit involving loan transaction dismissed – Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred by SARFAESI Act – Debts Recovery Tribunal identified as the competent authority for such disputes. [Para 9(ii)-9(iii)]

Decision – Orders of lower courts upheld – Civil Court's jurisdiction barred under SARFAESI Act in disputes related to enforcement of security interests – Revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit. [Para 9(iii)]

Bail Cancellation – Criminal Petition for Canceling Bail Order – Petition to cancel bail order dated 10.04.2023 granted by XXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.2246/2022 for offenses under IPC Sections 302, 504, 506 – Allegation of violation of bail conditions and no change in circumstances since earlier rejections of bail applications. [Paras 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 18]

Bail Principles – Successive Bail Applications – Consideration of successive bail applications in light of Supreme Court judgments – Necessity for specific reasons for granting bail after previous rejections, particularly in cases of serious offenses without any change in circumstances. [Paras 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18]

Judicial Discretion – Granting Bail – Need for courts to provide cogent reasons while granting bail in cases involving heinous offenses – Importance of adhering to established legal principles and judicial discipline in bail matters. [Paras 9, 15, 16, 17, 19]

Decision – Cancellation of Bail – Order granting bail to respondent no.2 set aside due to violation of principles for consideration of successive bail applications and lack of change in circumstances – Petitioner allowed to file a fresh petition for regular bail. [Para 20]

Civil Procedure – Repairs to Property – Permission for Repairs Granted: Petition under Article 227 - Constitution challenge to Trial Court's order denying roof repair permission. High Court sets aside Trial Court order - allows petitioner to repair property damaged due to MCD's demolition actions on upper floor. Mutual NOCs for regularisation/compounding applications to MCD agreed by parties. [Paras 1, 3, 7, 8]

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) – Demolition and Repairs: MCD confirms demolition on Respondent No.1's property - no current proceedings against petitioner's property. MCD policy permits independent applications by both parties for regularisation or compounding of unauthorised constructions. [Paras 3, 4]

Agreement between Parties – Schedule for Repairs: Detailed schedule for repairs agreed by parties - includes timeframe, supervision arrangements. Petitioner bears costs for repairs on Respondent No.1's property - no rights to recover these costs. Parties undertake not to obstruct each other's repair works - respect future MCD permissions for construction. [Paras 8, 8.8]

Court Directions – Compliance and Cooperation: MCD directed to promptly consider applications for compounding and regularisation. Petitioner can approach Trial Court for impediments in order implementation - MCD to extend cooperation for direction compliance. [Paras 9, 10]

Decision – Trial Court’s Order Overturned: Impugned order dated 24.05.2022 set aside - petition disposed of with directions. Decision made with mutual consent of parties. [Para 11]

Majibullah Mohammad Haneef challenges his extradition to Oman on allegations of murder involving an Omani national and his family - Arrest under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act, 1962 - Formal extradition request from Oman - Inquiry by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi - Magistrate concludes dual criminality principle satisfied, prima facie case against petitioner - Authentication of documents from Requesting State, offence non-political, fair trial expected in Oman - Petitioner argues false implication, concerns over document authentication, and fair trial in Oman - Court validates Magistrate's inquiry and conclusions - Extradition Treaty obligations met - Documents duly authenticated - Assurances of fair trial from Oman - High Court upholds Magistrate's recommendation for extradition - Petitioner's concerns addressed, fair trial assurances deemed adequate.

Writ Petition – Quashing of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and Related Proceedings – Petitioner's plea for quashing of proceedings initiated through ECIR/09/HIU/2019 following compounding and quashing of predicate FIRs – Partly allowed, with continuation of ECIR based on a subsequent FIR. [Paras 1-3, 36-37]

Predicate Offences – Compounding and Quashing of FIRs – Impact on PMLA Proceedings – FIRs No. 16/2018 and 49/2021 compounded and quashed, leading to cessation of proceedings under PMLA in connection with these FIRs against the petitioner – Continuation of ECIR/09/HIU/2019 valid due to existence of subsequent FIR No. 55/2023. [Paras 3, 25, 36]

Money Laundering – Independent Nature of Offence under PMLA – Clarification that offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is independent and continues despite quashing of predicate offences, subject to the existence of subsequent related FIRs. [Paras 32, 34-36]

Jurisdictional Facts – Requirement for Continuation of PMLA Proceedings – Emphasis on the existence of a predicate offence as a jurisdictional fact for PMLA proceedings – Quashing of initial FIRs renders related PMLA proceedings unsustainable, while subsequent FIRs can sustain ongoing ECIR. [Paras 20-21, 34]

Criminal Procedure – ECIR and its Relation with FIRs – ECIR, an internal document for administrative purposes under PMLA, distinguished from FIR under CrPC – ECIR's continuation based on subsequent FIRs held valid despite quashing of initial FIRs. [Paras 28-32, 36]

Decision – Partly allowing the writ petition – Proceedings under ECIR/09/HIU/2019 in relation to FIRs No. 16/2018 and 49/2021 quashed due to their compounding and quashing – Continuation of ECIR based on FIR No. 55/2023 held legitimate. [Paras 36-37]

Infringement of Trade Mark – Conflicting Trade Marks in Different Classes – Plaintiff holding registered trade marks in Class 5 for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, aggrieved by defendants' use of similar marks in different classes and subsequent usage in Class 5 for whey protein without valid registration – Prima facie case established against defendants for infringement of plaintiff's trade marks. [Para 1-5, 17-27]

Registration and Use of Trade Marks – Defendants' registration of similar marks in Classes 29 and 30, irrelevant to their use for whey protein in Class 5 – Plaintiff's registration in Class 5 being properly used, whereas defendants' use in Class 5 unauthorized, demonstrating prima facie infringement. [Para 5-6, 28]

Deceptive Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion – Marks "ABZORB" and "ABBZORB" phonetically identical, leading to likelihood of consumer confusion – Phonetic identity sufficient for prima facie finding of infringement, irrespective of visual or price differences between products. [Para 10, 22-24]

Defendants' Awareness of Plaintiff's Prior Mark – Defendants, after being made aware of plaintiff's similar mark in Class 5 through a First Examination Report, proceeded to use a deceptively similar mark for whey protein, indicating mala fide intent and disregard for plaintiff's registered mark. [Para 34-35]

Interim Injunction Granted – Defendants restrained from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in products under infringing marks "ABBZORB," "ABBZORB NUTRITION," or any deceptively similar mark to plaintiff’s "ABZORB" in related goods, pending final disposal of suit. [Para 37]

Plea of Non-entitlement to Registration Rejected – Defendants' contention that plaintiff’s mark "ABZORB" was not entitled to registration due to being a common English word held unavailing, as mark not descriptive of the goods and defendants themselves applied for similar mark registration. [Para 29-33]