Civil Law - Execution of decree for injunction – Executing Court wrongly dismissed application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – High Court held even prohibitory injunction enforceable in execution; demarcation can be directed – Order set aside, matter remanded [Paras 7–13].

Civil Procedure – Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – A decree for permanent injunction can be executed by attachment, detention, or restitution – Decree-holder need not file fresh suit for possession if judgment debtor violates decree by encroachment – Remedy lies in execution itself – Toran Singh v. Imrat Singh, 2012 (3) MPLJ 385 followed [Paras 7–9, 12].

Meaning of “wilful disobedience” – Requires proof of knowledge of decree, opportunity to obey, and deliberate defiance – Mere inadvertent act not enough – Burden lies on decree-holder – Karnataka rulings in Shivamurthy v. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart, AIR 1987 Kar 261 and Kariyappa v. Haladappa, AIR 1989 Kar 163 applied [Paras 7–9].

Prohibitory injunction – Enforceability – Explanation to Order 21 Rule 32(5) (added by 2002 CPC Amendment) makes clear that prohibitory injunctions too are enforceable in execution – Law Commission intent was to avoid multiplicity of suits – Court bound to give effect to decree, not drive decree-holder to new litigation [Paras 8–9, 12].

Error of Executing Court – Executing Court wrongly held that it could not go beyond decree and that possession relief was outside scope – High Court clarified that Executing Court has power to restore possession where decree violated – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Demarcation – Where dispute arises as to location/identity of land, Executing Court can direct demarcation by revenue authorities before enforcing decree – Necessary for determining whether obstruction (“Muram”) lies on suit land or adjoining land [Paras 11, 13].

Inherent powers – Section 151 CPC – Even apart from express powers, Court has inherent duty to prevent frustration of decrees – Power to “put clock back” where decree violated – Surjit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun, AIR 1986 Cal 220; Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S.N. Pandita, AIR 1975 All 482 cited [Para 8].

Disposition – Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court to get demarcation done through revenue authorities and then enforce decree under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC – Miscellaneous applications closed [Paras 12–14]

Guardianship Proceedings – Death of Ward Rendered Petitions Infructuous – LPAs Challenging Interim Orders Not Maintainable – Held: Guardianship Petition became infructuous after demise of DMP – Orders passed therein including appointment of Sole Guardian were temporary and cease to operate upon final orders in probate proceedings [Paras 1-4, 13, 14, 20, 26]

Probate Proceedings – Testamentary Disputes – No Interference by Appellate Court – Held: Pending probate petition appropriate forum to determine validity of Will – Any direction for administration of estate must await adjudication of probate petition – Appellate Court refrains from commenting on merits [Paras 21-25]

Status Quo Orders – Management of Deceased’s Estate – Validity of Orders Post Demise – Continuity Affirmed – Held: Status quo directions passed by LSJ concerning movable and immovable properties and financial assets of DMP to continue until varied by orders in probate proceedings [Paras 14, 26]

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Improper Application – Order Set Aside – Held: Plaintiff’s case not wholly barred – Suit discloses cause of action and alternative reliefs including partition – Probate pendency not ground to reject plaint – Rejection of plaint unsustainable in law [Paras 28-70]

Declaratory Suit – Consequential Relief – Not Always Mandatory – Plaintiff in Possession – Held: When plaintiff is in possession or properties are under Court’s custodia legis, suit for declaration without further relief is maintainable – Plaintiff’s failure to claim refund of Stridhan not fatal [Paras 35, 39-50]

Alternative Relief – Partition of Property – Acceptable Even Without Detailed Foundation – Held: Plaintiff entitled to seek partition in alternative to ownership – Absence of foundational facts not fatal at preliminary stage – Rejection on such grounds premature [Paras 42-44, 53-54]

Limitation – Cause of Action Commences Upon Death of Deceased – Held: Plaintiff’s right to sue arose upon death of DMP – Earlier allotment of shares to children or formation of companies not relevant to limitation – Rejection on limitation ground unjustified [Paras 45-46, 56]

Probate Petition – Suit for Ownership Not Barred – Scope of Civil Court Not Ousted – Held: Civil suit for ownership and partition of properties not barred merely due to pendency of probate – Challenge to Will can be stayed but not rejected outright [Paras 43, 54]

Rejection of Plaint – Only Entire Plaint Can Be Rejected – No Partial Rejection Permissible – Held: Order VII Rule 11 does not contemplate partial rejection – Rejection of only certain prayers improper in law [Paras 43, 60, 62]

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Rejection of Plaint Set Aside – All LPAs and FAO(OS) 38/2024 Dismissed as Infructuous – Civil Suit Restored – Ordered to be Consolidated with Pending Probate Proceedings – Held: Impugned Order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is set aside – Suit revived – Proceedings to be consolidated with Probate Petition TEST.CAS. 1/2022 before learned Single Judge on 23.09.2025 [Paras 70-71]

Interim Injunction – Suit for Specific Performance – Material Misstatement – Injunction Set Aside – The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking specific performance of a property sale agreement and obtained interim injunction restraining alienation of the property – Petitioner challenged the orders under Article 227, alleging misrepresentation in pleadings regarding extension of time for performance – The plaintiff admitted in evidence that he had sent the message extending the date, contrary to the claim in the plaint that it was sent by the defendant – Held: Interim orders based on misstatement of material facts cannot be sustained – Interim injunction quashed – Orders of the trial and appellate courts set aside [Paras 11–11.5].

Partition Suit – Final Decree based on Mediator’s Report Ignoring Preliminary Decree – Set Aside – Trial court wrongly ordered auction sale despite binding preliminary decree directing allotment of specific properties – Held: Final decree must conform to earlier confirmed directions [Paras 9–17].

Partition Suit – Final Decree Contradictory to Preliminary Decree – Final decree ordering auction sale of D & E schedule properties set aside – Trial court ignored reservation made in preliminary decree confirmed by High Court – Direction to re-partition as per original decree restored [Paras 9–17].

Civil Procedure – Commissioner’s Role – Mediator’s Report Lacked Legal Sanctity – Appointment of mediator to perform commissioner’s duties improper – Report not signed by parties and not compliant with Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC – Final decree based on such report held invalid [Paras 13–15].

Res Judicata – Binding Nature of Preliminary Decree – Preliminary decree directing allocation of certain properties to specific parties became final – Trial court’s deviation from this in final decree was impermissible – Earlier High Court confirmation in OP(C). No. 658 of 2017 reiterated [Paras 10–12, 16].

Partition Execution – Mandatory Compliance with Prior Directions – Trial court failed to comply with remand direction to amend commission report and ignored binding judicial orders – Such deviation vitiates final decree process [Paras 13, 16].

Final Decision – Impugned final decree set aside – Matter remanded for fresh final decree proceedings in accordance with preliminary decree – Trial court directed to dispose final decree application within one year – All interlocutory applications dismissed [Paras 17–19].

Service Law – Termination of University Employee – Mala fides and Vindictiveness – Fourth termination order challenged – Allegations of forged Ph.D. degree and misuse of salutation “Dr.” – Petitioner denied ever submitting any Ph.D. certificate – Proceedings found to be initiated only after petitioner lodged sexual harassment complaint against Registrar – Held: Proceedings actuated by mala fide intent, bias, and extraneous considerations – Termination unsustainable – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 52–63].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Proof of Misconduct – Requirement of Cogent Evidence – Mere mention of “pursuing Ph.D.” in CV does not amount to false claim – No material produced to show petitioner gained appointment/promotion using alleged fake degree – Findings based on conjectures cannot constitute misconduct [Paras 53–61].

Bias and Abuse of Power – Initiation of Proceedings after Complaint Against Registrar – Vindictive Approach – Courts have held mala fide and biased disciplinary proceedings void ab initio – Registrar acted with personal enmity; authorities misused process – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 55–59].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Misconduct Must Be Grave, Supported by Evidence – Courts can interfere if punishment shocks conscience – In present case, no misconduct proved; dismissal wholly disproportionate and arbitrary [Paras 47–51].

Decision – Impugned termination order dated 14.12.2024 quashed – Petitioner entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits – Writ Petition Allowed [Paras 62–63].

Quash Petition – Corruption Allegations – Section 482 CrPC – Alleged Conspiracy in Purchase of Fogging Machines – Quash Rejected – Petitioners, former Executive Officers of Salem District Town Panchayats, sought quashing of proceedings in Spl.C.C.Nos.1–3 of 2024 arising from Crime No.3 of 2021 under PC Act and IPC offences – Allegation: machines purchased at inflated rates in collusion with traders, violating tender norms, causing loss to Panchayat funds – Defence: procedure followed, sanction obtained, prices comparable to GeM portal and other Panchayats, selective prosecution, absence of dishonest intention – Held: Grounds raised are factual and disputed, malice or arbitrariness can only be tested at trial – Sufficient materials exist in charge sheet, cognizance properly taken – No case for quashing [Paras 2–3, 6–7, 16–22].

Public Servant Misconduct – Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 – Section 13(1)(a) – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Petitioners argued absence of dishonest intention, citing audit clearance and departmental approvals – Held: Whether purchases were dishonest, collusive, or in violation of MRP directions are factual issues requiring evidence – Audit clearance not conclusive to absolve criminal liability – Prima facie case made out in charge sheet [Paras 8–11, 16–21].

Selective Prosecution – Allegation of Mala Fide and Arbitrariness – 180 Panchayats purchased machines at similar prices but no action taken – Petitioners claimed abuse of process – Held: Selective targeting and mala fides are matters of trial, not for consideration at quash stage – Petitioners failed to produce unimpeachable material warranting interference [Paras 6, 15, 22].

Quash Petition – Scope under Section 482 CrPC – Judicial Interference – Court reiterated that disputed factual issues, motive, and conspiracy cannot be assessed at the pre-trial stage – As charge sheet supported by sanction, witness statements and documents, no ground to quash prosecution – Petitions dismissed [Paras 21–23].

Decision: All Criminal Original Petitions dismissed – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed – Trial Court directed to proceed uninfluenced by observations in this order [Para 23].

Loan Fraud – Discharge Petitions – Criminal Conspiracy and Abuse of Official Position – Discharge Rejected – Prima facie material supports framing of charges under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 5-7, 14-16, 21-22, 33-35].

Discharge Petition – Criminal Conspiracy – Bank Loan Fraud – Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Discharge Denied – The 2nd and 5th accused challenged dismissal of their discharge petitions in a case involving fraudulent loans sanctioned through conspiracy with bank officials to cheat State Bank of Travancore – The Court held that there was prima facie material including witness statements, cheques, and banking transactions indicating the accused’s role in the conspiracy – The discharge petitions were rightly dismissed [Paras 5-7, 14-16, 21-22].

Retrospective Application – Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Earlier Offences Under Section 13(1)(d) Continue – Held: The amended provisions do not apply retrospectively to offences committed before 26.07.2018 – Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies – Prosecution of prior offences under unamended Act valid [Paras 18-24, 27-30].

Mens Rea – Criminal Misconduct Under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) – Not Always Required – Legislative History Indicates Amendment Aimed at Excluding Acts Without Public Interest – But Pre-Amendment Offences Remain Punishable – Court rejected contention that amended provision should apply to pending proceedings [Paras 28-32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Prima Facie Material Sufficient to Frame Charges – In Conspiracy and Economic Offences, Direct Evidence Often Absent – Reliance Placed on Bank Documents, Witness Statements, and Transaction Trails – Court held that sufficiency of material warrants trial [Paras 14, 16, 20, 22].

Decision:

The Court dismissed both criminal revision petitions, upheld the Special Court’s refusal to discharge the 2nd and 5th accused, and held that the amended provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, do not affect pending prosecutions for offences committed prior to 26.07.2018 – Proceedings to continue under the unamended provisions [Paras 33-35].

Trial Court’s marking of public document post-evidence closure without allowing rebuttal – Procedural impropriety partly corrected by High Court under Article 227.

Civil Procedure – Acceptance of Document Post Evidence Closure – Article 227 – CMP Partially Allowed - The petitioners (defendants) challenged the Trial Court's order marking the certified copy of the R.o.R. as Ext.25 after the closure of evidence, without giving them an opportunity to rebut – Opponent argued that being a public document, it could be accepted even at the argument stage under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC – Held: While the marking of the document was legally permissible, it was essential for the Trial Court to provide an opportunity to the other side to adduce rebuttal evidence in compliance with natural justice – CMP allowed in part, with direction to the Trial Court to permit rebuttal evidence and dispose of the suit within 3 months from production of this order [Paras 3-7].

Trademark Dispute – Passing Off Action – Interim Injunction Partly Upheld and Partly Set Aside – Plaintiff (IMPL/boAt) alleged deceptive similarity of defendant’s (EM/Boult) marks BOULT, logos, and tagline with its BOAT/boAt brand – Single Judge injuncted EM from using three logos and tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” – Division Bench held: (i) No injunction could be granted on tagline absent formal prayer, order to that extent quashed, (ii) injunction against use of marks/logos upheld as consistent with settled principles of passing off, (iii) EM free to use proposed new mark GOBOULT since not part of lis – Appeal disposed with partial relief [Paras 7, 42-47].

Injunction Beyond Pleadings – Tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” – Relief Not Prayed Cannot Be Granted – Court reiterated settled law that courts cannot grant relief beyond pleadings – Single Judge erred in injuncting tagline without prayer – That portion of order set aside [Paras 44.1–44.3].

Adoption of New Mark – GOBOULT – No Existing Injunction – As Single Judge did not restrain use of similar marks generally, EM free to adopt GOBOULT – Any objection by IMPL must be pursued separately as distinct cause of action [Paras 45.1–45.5, 47(iii)].

Passing Off – Phonetic and Visual Similarity – BOAT and BOULT held deceptively similar – Common triangular logos and similar tagline motifs (“PLUG INTO NIRVANA” vs. “UNPLUG YOURSELF”) enhanced likelihood of confusion – Consumer test based on imperfect recollection applied – Court declined to interfere with Single Judge’s discretion [Paras 46.4–46.17].

Principles of Appellate Interference – Appeal Against Interim Injunction – Limited Scope – Appellate court not to substitute its view unless lower court’s discretion arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to law – Reiterated principles from Wander Ltd. v. Antox India and subsequent SC rulings [Paras 46.3.1–46.3.5].

Infringement vs. Passing Off – EM’s registered mark insulated it from infringement claim – Case decided on passing off, requiring proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage – Goodwill of boAt brand established by turnover and advertising expenditure – Prima facie passing off found [Paras 46.6–46.13].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Injunction against marks/logos affirmed – Injunction on tagline set aside – Clarified no bar against use of GOBOULT – Each party to bear own costs [Para 47].