Dismissal for Want of Prosecution – Challenge against Special Metropolitan Magistrate's order dismissing complaint for non-appearance of complainant under Section 256 Cr.P.C. - Acquittal of accused for charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to complainant's absence on several court dates, despite history of presence and legal representation [Para 1-6].

Judicial Review of Magistrate's Decision – High Court examines whether Magistrate acted justifiably in dismissing complaint without complainant's presence despite ongoing efforts since 2013 to prosecute, including issuance of arrest warrants against absent accused [Paras 5, 12-14].

Legal Implications of Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Discussed necessity of judicial discretion in dismissing cases under Section 256 Cr.P.C., emphasizing protection against dilatory tactics by complainants and potential misuse leading to undue harassment of accused [Paras 10-11].

Restoration of Complaint – High Court finds dismissal and acquittal by Magistrate hasty and lacking in judicial prudence – Orders restoration of complaint to original status and continuation of proceedings from last effective stage – Critiques lack of opportunity given to complainant to rectify non-appearance [Paras 18-20].

Directive for Further Proceedings – Trial court instructed to proceed lawfully with complaint, ensuring both parties are given fair opportunity to present their cases [Para 20].

Compensation – Railway Accident – The appellants, dependents of N. Jahankir, who died in a railway accident, sought to set aside the dismissal of their claim for compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal – The deceased, holding a valid ticket, was hit by a train while on the platform, leading to his death – The Tribunal dismissed the claim, attributing the accident to the deceased's negligence [Paras 1-4].

Untoward Incident – Burden of Proof – The court emphasized that the deceased's act of being on the platform did not constitute self-inflicted injury under Section 124-A of the Railways Act – The burden of proof to show negligence was on the Railways, which failed to substantiate its claims – Referred to Union of India v. Rina Devi, holding that unintentional acts leading to death do not negate the right to compensation [Paras 10-14].

Judicial Interpretation – Negligence and Self-Inflicted Injury – Cited various precedents, including Rajalakshmi v. Union of India, to highlight the distinction between trespassing with intent and accidental occurrences – Held that even if trespassing occurred, it must be proven to be intentional to deny compensation under Section 124-A [Paras 14-17].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The respondent was directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment – Allocated the compensation among the dependents, ensuring minors' shares are deposited in a Nationalised Bank till they attain majority [Paras 19-20].

Suo Motu Contempt – Contempt of Courts Act – Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated based on a resolution passed by the Madurai Bar Association criticizing a judicial order on helmet mandates – Processions and distribution of defamatory leaflets against judges led to the initiation of proceedings – Both contemnors tendered unconditional apologies – The court accepted the apologies and closed the petition [Paras 1-31].

Resolution Against Judicial Order – The genesis of the contempt proceedings stemmed from a resolution passed by the Madurai Bar Association against a judicial order mandating helmet use, alleging undue influence and corruption – Court emphasized the importance of respect for judicial orders and proper channels for addressing grievances [Paras 1-10].

Role and Conduct of Lawyers – Court reiterated the critical role of lawyers in the justice system and their responsibility to uphold the dignity and integrity of the judiciary – Condemned the practice of resorting to strikes and coercive actions without exhausting legal remedies [Paras 16-24].

Acceptance of Apology – Given the unconditional apologies and explanations rendered by the contemnors, along with their age and long-standing practice, the court decided to accept the apologies and not proceed further with the contempt charges – Aimed to underscore the importance of maintaining professional decorum while acknowledging the contemnors' remorse [Paras 27-30].

Decision: The Suo Motu Contempt Petition is closed, accepting the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors.
 

Deceptive Similarity – Pharmaceutical Trademarks – Appellant challenged the interim injunction granted against use of "INDAMET" – Claimed that "ISTAMET" and "INDAMET" are not deceptively similar – Court held stringent scrutiny applies to pharmaceutical products due to potential health risks – Injunction upheld based on structural and phonetic similarity, likelihood of consumer confusion [Paras 50-63]. 

Dominant Feature – Anti-Dissection Rule – Sun Pharma's registration for "ISTAMET XR CP" was scrutinized – Court identified "ISTAMET" as the dominant feature, disregarding generic terms "XR" and "CP" – Argument to exclude suffix "MET" was rejected as it would lead to artificial dissection of the mark [Paras 64-66]. 

Mode of Administration – Court rejected the appellant's argument regarding different modes of administration (oral vs. inhalation) – Noted that the possibility of consumer confusion remains, irrespective of administration method – Highlighted the necessity to avoid confusion, especially in pharmaceuticals [Paras 68-69]. 

Public Health and Safety – Emphasized that confusing pharmaceutical trademarks pose serious health risks – Court cited precedents underscoring the need for heightened scrutiny in medicinal product cases – Public interest supports a lesser degree of proof for establishing confusing similarity [Paras 51-58]. 

Third Party Trademarks – Appellant's reference to other trademarks with similar suffixes was dismissed – Court maintained that "MET" cannot be removed from the assessment of similarity – Recognized the dominant features as "ISTAMET" and "INDAMET" [Paras 74-75]. 

Decision: 

Appeal dismissed – Injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals upheld – Interim order vacated – Findings are prima facie and do not affect the merits of the case [Paras 76-77]. 

Amendment of Joint Written Statement – Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction –  Amendment of Joint Written Statement Filed by Multiple Defendants – Held – the Court upholds the revisional court's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration of the amendment application. Emphasizes the need for consent from all joint filers or their explicit agreement to the proposed changes, reinforcing the principle that a jointly filed written statement cannot be unilaterally amended by one party. Cites precedence and principles from prior rulings, stressing the importance of consent and unity in joint filings to avoid prejudicing the rights of other defendants. [Paras 1-34]

Legal Principle of Joint Written Statement – Court's Supervisory Role under Article 227 – Held – establishes that when a written statement is jointly filed, any amendment sought by one of the signatories must have the consent of the others. This approach ensures that all parties maintain a unified stance unless explicitly agreed otherwise, thus protecting the integrity of joint defenses in legal proceedings. [Paras 30-32]

Decision and Directions – High Court's Supervision Under Article 227 – Held – confirms the revisional court’s order remanding the case for detailed examination of the amendment application with the involvement of all joint defendants. The trial court is directed to ensure that the defendant not part of the amendment application is served and given an opportunity to consent, thus facilitating a fair and thorough reconsideration in light of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. [Paras 33-34]

Petition under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited against the acquittal of the respondent in case involving alleged electricity theft under Sections 135, 138, and 150 of the Electricity Act – High Court upholds acquittal, finding that the trial court correctly identified flaws in the forensic report and expert testimony – High Court concludes that petitioner failed to establish dishonest intent required under the Electricity Act beyond a reasonable doubt. [Paras 1, 12, 40-41]

Electricity Theft Allegations – Analysis of the trial court's evaluation of expert forensic testimony regarding a burnt electric meter – High Court agrees with trial court's judgment that expert testimony was unreliable and lacked scientific basis, thus failing to prove that the respondent dishonestly caused the meter to burn – Emphasis on burden of proof resting on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not met. [Paras 12, 27-33]

Burden of Proof and Expert Testimony – Discussion on the application of Sections 105 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act – High Court finds that the prosecution did not adequately prove respondent's dishonest action, and expert witness was not competent in electrical engineering, undermining the prosecution's case – High Court rules that unreliable and unscientific expert testimony cannot solely determine the outcome of a theft allegation. [Paras 15-17, 27-28, 37-38]

Decision – Upholding of Trial Court’s Acquittal – High Court finds no perversity in trial court's judgment and concludes that the factual findings of the trial court were neither improbable nor implausible – Leave to appeal against acquittal dismissed, confirming the trial court’s decision in favor of the respondent. [Paras 39-41]

Interim Compensation under Section 143A NI Act – Questions on Discretionary Nature – Various petitions filed challenging orders of Metropolitan Magistrates directing the petitioners to pay interim compensation ranging from 10% to 12% of dishonoured cheque amounts - The petitions dispute the interpretation and application of Section 143A of the NI Act concerning its mandatory or discretionary nature - Impugned orders issued by lower courts viewed Section 143A as mandatory, requiring revision in light of Supreme Court precedent emphasizing its discretionary nature [Paras 1-30]

Corporate Responsibility and Personal Liability – Issues regarding the personal liability of directors and authorized signatories under Section 141 of the NI Act - Examination of whether such individuals can be deemed 'drawers of the cheque' for the purposes of Section 143A - High Court clarifies the distinction, noting that liability for interim compensation specifically rests with the drawer of the cheque, and corporate directors or signatories cannot be automatically held liable under Section 143A without direct involvement [Paras 22-26]

Judicial Assessment and Application of Law – High Court critical of lower courts' failure to consider relevant factors such as existing securities (flats) and the financial state of the accused while ordering interim compensation - The necessity for courts to consider the entirety of circumstances and financial distress of the accused highlighted [Paras 19-21, 28-29]

Decision – High Court sets aside the impugned orders from lower courts, providing relief to the petitioners from the directed interim compensations due to misapplication of the legal provisions - Emphasis on judicial discretion and proper application of legal principles in interim compensation orders [Para 29]

Interim Compensation under Section 143A NI Act – Questions on Discretionary Nature – Various petitions filed challenging orders of Metropolitan Magistrates directing the petitioners to pay interim compensation ranging from 10% to 12% of dishonoured cheque amounts - The petitions dispute the interpretation and application of Section 143A of the NI Act concerning its mandatory or discretionary nature - Impugned orders issued by lower courts viewed Section 143A as mandatory, requiring revision in light of Supreme Court precedent emphasizing its discretionary nature [Paras 1-30]

Corporate Responsibility and Personal Liability – Issues regarding the personal liability of directors and authorized signatories under Section 141 of the NI Act - Examination of whether such individuals can be deemed 'drawers of the cheque' for the purposes of Section 143A - High Court clarifies the distinction, noting that liability for interim compensation specifically rests with the drawer of the cheque, and corporate directors or signatories cannot be automatically held liable under Section 143A without direct involvement [Paras 22-26]

Judicial Assessment and Application of Law – High Court critical of lower courts' failure to consider relevant factors such as existing securities (flats) and the financial state of the accused while ordering interim compensation - The necessity for courts to consider the entirety of circumstances and financial distress of the accused highlighted [Paras 19-21, 28-29]

Decision – High Court sets aside the impugned orders from lower courts, providing relief to the petitioners from the directed interim compensations due to misapplication of the legal provisions - Emphasis on judicial discretion and proper application of legal principles in interim compensation orders [Para 29]

Service Law - Seniority Dispute in Railway Protection Force –Consolidated Writ Petitions – Involves reevaluation of seniority lists affecting several petitioners with similar legal issues and facts. Seniority perturbed by the issuance of provisional combined seniority list and an earlier order, both of which are challenged. Held that redrawing seniority based on these actions is inappropriate without valid reasons, thus, both actions are quashed. [Paras 1, 16, 22, 32-35]

Rule Application and Seniority – Discussion of Rule 99.2 and Rule 99.2A of RPF Rules – Held that neither rule directly impacts the resolution of the present seniority issue. The court emphasizes the importance of stability in seniority and promotions already granted, pointing out the lack of justification for the recent adjustments made by the authorities. [Paras 14, 17, 34]

Legitimate Expectation and Retrospective Changes – Court acknowledges the legitimate expectation of petitioners based on past promotions and consistent seniority. Criticizes attempts to retrospectively alter seniority, causing potential prejudice and disruptions among personnel. Relies on precedents about legitimate expectations and settled seniority. [Paras 23, 24, 27, 30]

Decision – sets aside the contested seniority list and related orders, allows for the issuance of a new list if necessary, in accordance with law, ensuring no retrospective adjustments that unsettle established seniority. The judgments clarifies the non-applicability of cited rules to the specific circumstances of the case. [Paras 32, 33, 35]