Patent Law – Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(ja) Patents Act – Obviousness – Divisional Application – Appellant challenged refusal of patent for fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition of uPVC and ABS with wetted continuous fibers – Controller held claims obvious in light of prior art D1–D7 – Held, prior arts disclosed similar extrusion processes, uPVC–ABS blends and inherent wetting of fibers – No demonstrable technical advancement or economic significance established – Inventive step rightly denied [Paras 3–5, 11].

Patent Law – Obviousness Analysis – Person Skilled in the Art – Judicial Precedents – Appellant relied on Windsurfing–Pozzoli tests and anti-hindsight principles – Held, Controller applied correct test by comparing prior art, identifying differences and assessing obviousness without hindsight – Mere rearrangement or combination of known features insufficient to constitute inventive step [Paras 6–9, 11].

Patent Law – Amendment of Claims – Section 59(1) Patents Act – Scope and Permissibility – Appellant contended that incorporation of “wetted fibers” only narrowed claims – Held, amended claims already comprehended within parent application and disclosed no new inventive concept – Amendment cannot be used to overcome lack of inventive step when core subject matter remains obvious [Paras 5, 11].

Patent Law – Divisional Application – Section 16(2) Patents Act – Overlapping Subject Matter – Controller found amended claims fully covered by parent application which itself was not granted – Held, divisional application impermissible where no distinct invention emerges – Rejection justified [Paras 3, 11].

Patent Law – Role of High Court in Appeal under Section 117A – Interference with Controller’s Technical Findings – High Court will not substitute its view where Controller has undertaken detailed comparison of claims and prior art and applied settled legal principles – Impugned order found reasoned and free from legal infirmity [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Joint Controller of Patents and Designs refusing grant of patent upheld – No order as to costs.

Money Laundering – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 – Delay in Trial – Applicant in custody for over two years in connection with ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019 under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA – Charges not yet framed – 71 witnesses and over 31,000 pages of documentary evidence cited by ED – Trial of predicate offences before CBI Court not commenced – Held: Continued custody without foreseeable conclusion of trial amounts to violation of Article 21 – Right to speedy trial is paramount and overrides statutory restrictions under Section 45 of PMLA where prolonged incarceration is evident [Paras 26, 32-34, 44, 48].

PMLA – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Constitutional Courts’ Powers – Citing judgments in V. Senthil Balaji, Manish Sisodia, and K.A. Najeeb, Court held that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, constitutional courts may relax twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA – Held: In present case, both conditions deemed satisfied – Applicant not found guilty at this stage and not likely to commit offence on bail [Paras 43-45].

Bail Jurisprudence – Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception – Citing Manish Sisodia v. ED, Bachhu Yadav v. ED, and Ramkripal Meena v. ED, Court reiterated that statutory bail restrictions must yield to constitutional protections where trial is inordinate and incarceration disproportionate – Bail not to be withheld as punishment when trial unlikely to conclude soon [Paras 35, 39, 40, 42].

Trial Delay – No Fault of Applicant – Though ED alleged delay was caused by accused, Court found no fault attributable to applicant – Adjournments sought by co-accused not to prejudice applicant’s right to bail – Bail refusal cannot be justified solely on pendency caused by others [Paras 32-33].

Public Servant Accused – Shell Entities and Money Trail – Allegations that applicant, as Dealing Assistant in Department of Higher Education, verified fraudulent scholarship claims and laundered proceeds through entities formed with family members – ED traced proceeds of crime to land purchases and business investments – However, Court held that these are to be adjudicated at trial – Bail not to be denied solely due to role as government servant [Paras 21.3–21.15, 46].

Investigation Status – No Tampering Risk – ED expressed concerns about tampering and influence – Court held concerns can be addressed by imposing strict bail conditions – Evidence largely documentary and already seized – No likelihood of tampering [Paras 21.17, 57].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant ordered to be released on furnishing personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial attendance and prevent tampering – ED granted liberty to seek cancellation upon violation of terms.

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Father's Obligation vis-a-vis Mother's Income – Challenge against Family Court order directing father to pay Rs. 6,500/- per month to each of his two minor children – Father contended liability ought to be apportioned mathematically since the mother earns a substantial income of Rs. 93,991/- per month – Held: Mere earning of the mother does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral duty to maintain his minor children. The obligation of a father is independent and continues as long as children are minors. Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not require arithmetical apportionment of liability. The awarded amount is reasonable and proportionate given the rising cost of living and needs of growing children [Paras 17-18].

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Plea of Unemployment – Father claimed total unemployment since 2017 due to multiple litigations – Evidence revealed the father, an MCA graduate with substantial experience, had an offer letter reflecting a monthly CTC of Rs. 92,562/- and take-home salary of Rs. 64,000/- – Held: A bald plea of unemployment cannot be accepted at face value for an able-bodied, qualified, and experienced person. Intentional or voluntary unemployment cannot be used as an excuse to avoid statutory responsibility. Adverse inference rightly drawn against the father for concealing true income [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Minor children sought enhancement of maintenance amount – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is protective and welfare-oriented but limited in scope. It is not an appellate jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only if the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity. As the maintenance awarded is not shockingly low or manifestly unjust, enhancement cannot be granted merely on re-evaluation of facts [Paras 13, 20].

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Effective Date and Adjustment of Prior Awards – Father challenged the direction to pay maintenance from the date of application and non-adjustment of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act – Held: Awarding maintenance from the date of application is within the discretion of the court, and it was exercised judiciously. Any amount already paid under parallel proceedings can be adjusted at the stage of execution. Such grounds do not render the impugned order illegal [Para 19].

Decision: Both Criminal Revisions dismissed – The judgment and order of the Family Court dated 16.07.2022 is affirmed – Amounts already paid shall be duly adjusted in accordance with law – Arrears, if any, to be cleared by the revisionist/father within three months from the date of judgment.

Civil Law - Power of Attorney – Sale Deed – Fraud and Collusion – Loan Transaction Disguised as Sale – Plaintiff pleaded that power of attorney and earlier sale agreement were executed only as security for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- – Power agent cancelled earlier agreement and executed sale deed in favour of third defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge – Multiple registered documents executed on the same day – Production of life certificate though plaintiff allegedly present – Suspicious circumstances not satisfactorily explained – Passing of sale consideration not proved – Held: Sale deed dated 04.10.2013 invalid and void [Paras 11–28].

Sale Agreement – Sham and Nominal Transaction – Defendants pleaded borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/- but agreement reflected advance of only Rs.50,000/- – Pleadings and evidence mutually destructive – First defendant not examined – Agreement subsequently cancelled during pendency of suit – Held: Agreement not genuine or enforceable [Paras 21–28, 38].

Evidence – Registered Documents – Presumption and Rebuttal – Registration by itself does not sanctify a transaction – Presumption stands displaced where surrounding circumstances indicate fraud and improbability – Section 92 of the Evidence Act does not bar proof of sham or colourable transactions [Paras 15–26].

Receipt for Consideration – Proof – Undated receipt – Material particulars filled subsequently in ink – Plaintiff’s presence not established – Attesting witness did not speak to passing of consideration – Held: Receipt unreliable and insufficient to prove payment of sale consideration [Paras 24–25].

Possession – Vacant Site – Possession Follows Title – Sale deed having been declared invalid, purchaser cannot claim lawful possession – Plaintiff’s title subsists – Held: Plaintiff deemed to be in possession of suit property [Paras 29–30].

Civil Procedure – Relief Beyond Pleadings – Money Decree – Trial Court granted decree directing plaintiff to repay Rs.5,00,000/- though second defendant neither pleaded nor filed counter-claim – Violates principle of judex ne eat ultra petita partium – Decree granted without court fee – Held: Money decree unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 31–37].

Court’s Power to Mould Relief – Limits – Court may grant lesser or appropriate relief but cannot grant a relief not prayed for – Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised contrary to pleadings and statutory requirements [Paras 34–36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Declaration that sale deed dated 04.10.2013 is null and void confirmed – Direction of trial court directing plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with interest to second defendant set aside – Suit decreed in favour of plaintiff without any relief to defendants – Costs awarded.

Civil Writ - Revenue Records – Mutation Proceedings – Delay and Laches – Exercise of Power after Long Lapse of Time – Revenue authorities entertaining claims after an inordinate delay of 71 years from initial transactions and 26 years from issuance of pattadar pass books held impermissible – Even in absence of prescribed limitation, statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time – Entertaining stale claims unsettles settled rights and violates rule of law [Paras 10–13].

Revenue Authorities – Jurisdiction – Title Disputes – Limits – Where complicated questions of title and possession arise, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes – Role of revenue authorities confined to maintenance of records – Civil Court alone competent forum for adjudication of title – Joint Collector exceeded jurisdiction by virtually deciding title on basis of administrative report [Paras 3–4, 6, 14–16].

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Section 8(2) – Bar of Suits – Scope – Where entries in record of rights deny title, aggrieved party must seek declaration before Civil Court – Revenue remedies not substitute for civil adjudication – Party deliberately bypassing Civil Court cannot seek relief under ROR Act [Paras 14–15].

Mutation Entries – Evidentiary Value – Finality – Long Standing Revenue Records – Revenue entries standing unchallenged for decades carry high evidentiary value – Mutation and pattadar pass books issued after due enquiry cannot be unsettled after prolonged silence – Doctrine of settled rights applies [Paras 9–11].

Suo Motu / Revisional Powers – Reasonable Time – Doctrine of Fair Play – Exercise of revisional or supervisory powers after decades held arbitrary and oppressive – Reliance placed on precedents of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court – Administrative action after long delay violates fairness and certainty in land rights [Paras 10–12].

Joint Collector – Impugned Order – Arbitrary and Without Jurisdiction – Order setting aside RDO’s decision and directing alteration of revenue entries based solely on report held illegal – Joint Collector acted beyond statutory authority – Order liable to be quashed [Paras 4, 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned Order No. D.Dis.No.3630/2015/D4 dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Joint Collector set aside – No order as to costs – All pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – State challenged acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 187 MV Act – Reiterating settled law, High Court held that interference with acquittal is permissible only if findings are perverse, based on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or if only one conclusion of guilt is possible – If two reasonable views are possible, acquittal must be upheld [Paras 12–14].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Contradictory Ocular Evidence – Prosecution relied primarily on testimonies of injured motorcyclist (PW1) and pillion rider (PW2) – Their statements regarding place and manner of accident were inconsistent inter se and contradicted the site plan – Held: Such contradictions materially affect credibility and fail to establish negligence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15–17].

Evidence – Site Plan and Mechanical Inspection – Prevailing Over Inconsistent Oral Testimony – PW1 and PW2 claimed accident occurred on unmetalled portion of road – Site plan showed point of impact on metalled portion – PW2 stated motorcycle hit rear of bus, whereas mechanical report showed damage to bus headlight – Held: Documentary and scientific evidence did not support prosecution version [Paras 17–18].

Witness Testimony – Non-Eyewitness – PW6, who took injured to hospital, admitted accident did not occur in his presence – Held: His testimony could not corroborate prosecution case regarding negligence [Para 19].

Presumption of Innocence – Reinforced After Acquittal – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and plausible – High Court declined to substitute its own view merely because an alternative view was possible – Reinforced presumption of innocence after acquittal respected [Paras 20–21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2014 affirmed – Accused directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS – Records ordered to be returned – Pending applications disposed of.

Writ Petition – Parole – Delay and Laches – Maintainability – Petitioner sought quashing of order rejecting parole dated 04.09.2024 and direction for release on parole – Petition filed after lapse of more than one year without any explanation – Held: Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary – A litigant who sleeps over his rights for a considerable period is not entitled to equitable relief – Delay defeats equity – Petition liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone [Paras 5–6].

Parole – Rejection Order – Challenge after Inordinate Delay – Petitioner convicted under POCSO Act and undergoing sentence – Application for parole rejected – No justification furnished for approaching the High Court belatedly – Mere assertion of good conduct in jail and length of custody not sufficient to overcome unexplained delay – Writ Court not obliged to revive a stale cause of action [Paras 2, 5–6].

Article 226 – Discretionary Jurisdiction – Equitable Relief – Though no statutory limitation prescribed for filing writ petition, same must be invoked within a reasonable time – High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction where negligence or inaction is attributable to the petitioner – Relief rightly declined [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Precedent – Delay Defeats Equity – Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley reiterated that writ courts should not entertain stale claims – Even fundamental rights claims may be declined if approached belatedly without satisfactory explanation – Principles applied to parole matters as well [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Rejection of parole not interfered with on account of unexplained delay of more than one year – Pending miscellaneous applications also dismissed.

Civil Law – Closure of Evidence – Repeated Opportunities – Justification – Family Court closed the petitioner’s right to lead evidence after granting multiple opportunities spanning several dates – Petitioner failed to produce any witness despite directions to do so on self-responsibility – Held: Courts are not required to wait indefinitely for a party to lead evidence – Non-production despite repeated opportunities is a conscious act and consequences must follow [Paras 3–4, 8].

Maintenance Dispute – False Plea as Ground for Adjournment – Petitioner sought adjournment on the ground of non-payment of maintenance – Record revealed that entire arrears of maintenance amounting to ₹16,80,000/- had already been paid and regular payments were being made – Held: Plea of non-payment of maintenance raised for seeking adjournment was palpably false and could not justify repeated defaults in leading evidence [Paras 5–7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope and Limitations – High Court reiterated that jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and corrective in nature – Interference warranted only in cases of grave dereliction of duty, perversity, miscarriage of justice or violation of fundamental principles of law – Reappreciation of evidence or substitution of conclusions impermissible – No such ground made out in the present case [Paras 9–10].

Family Court Proceedings – Procedural Discipline – Closure of evidence upheld where party showed continued laxity and failed to comply with procedural directions – Trial Court’s order found neither arbitrary nor perverse – Procedural discipline essential to ensure expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Order dated 24.04.2024 closing the petitioner’s right to lead evidence affirmed – Parties directed to appear before the Trial Court on 16.01.2026 – Pending applications disposed of.