Copyright Infringement – Film piracy – Dynamic+ injunction – Websites restrained from illegally streaming Plaintiff’s film “Jolly LLB 3” – Domain registrars, ISPs, DoT and MeitY directed to block infringing domains – Strong interim relief granted considering imminent release [Paras 34–43].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-institution Mediation – Section 12A – Exemption granted – Suit involving urgent interim relief falls within exception as per SC judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 [Para 8].

Copyright – Ad-interim Injunction – Plaintiff, exclusive owner of “Jolly LLB 3” rights, established prima facie case – Unauthorized dissemination through rogue websites would cause irreparable harm and undermine investment – Balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favour – Ex-parte injunction granted restraining 24 infringing websites [Paras 34–40].

Dynamic+ Injunction – Application of precedent – Following Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, 2023:DHC:5842, Court extended relief not only to present infringements but also to future rogue websites discovered during proceedings – Ensures real-time blocking without repeated court intervention [Paras 37–42].

Defendants – Directions to DNRs and ISPs – Domain registrars (Namecheap, Cloudflare, Dynadot, Tucows, etc.) ordered to suspend and furnish details of registrants of infringing domains – ISPs directed to block access – DoT and MeitY to notify all ISPs to enforce blocking – Mechanism created for Plaintiff to notify fresh infringing domains for immediate blocking [Paras 40(b)–(f)].

Procedural Directions – Plaintiff to continue filing affidavits disclosing newly discovered infringing domains/URLs – Any wrongly blocked website permitted to approach Court with undertaking – Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandated within two days [Paras 42–45].

Disposition – Ad-interim injunction granted against 24 infringing websites – Domain registrars, ISPs and government authorities directed to ensure compliance – Matter listed for further hearing on 20.01.2026 [Paras 40–46].

Registration – Sub-Registrar’s Powers – Refusal Memo – Third-Party Objections – Sub-Registrar refused registration citing rival claim based on alleged prior unregistered agreement – Held: Registrar has no authority to adjudicate title disputes or act on police complaints/letters – Only grounds under Rule 162, Sections 22-A & 22-B are valid for refusal – Refusal beyond these grounds is without jurisdiction [Paras 6-9, 17-20].

Rule 162 & Limited Grounds – Refusal permissible only for defects in language, identification, appearance, execution denial, forged document, prohibited transactions, or attachments recognised by law – Objections like absence of patta, chitta, parent document, undervaluation, rival title, pending civil suits, police letters, mortgages, or leases not grounds for refusal [Paras 9-13, 17-19, 29-31].

Administrative Circulars – Sections 68 & 69 – Circulars requiring patta, FMB sketch, no objection from mortgagee/lessee, barring registration due to civil disputes or attachments – Held: unenforceable – Cannot override statute – Courts alone have interpretative power – Inspector General cannot expand grounds for refusal [Paras 13, 29-31].

Encumbrance & Attachment – Section 64 CPC – Private alienation post-attachment void only against enforceable claims, not void generally – Registrar must allow registration with endorsement to notify purchaser – Attachments for trivial sums cannot freeze alienability indefinitely [Paras 26-28].

Civil Disputes – Pendency of suits or rival title claims – Not bar to registration – Sub-Registrar’s enquiry is administrative/executive, not quasi-judicial – Execution/title disputes can only be adjudicated by civil courts [Paras 15-16, 20-23].

Mortgage & Lease – Existence of mortgage or lease not bar to further transfer – Subsequent transferee steps into shoes of mortgagor/lessor – Registrar cannot insist on mortgagee/lessee’s “No Objection” – Rule 55-A’s proviso struck down as ultra vires [Paras 29-31].

Supreme Court Precedents – Reconstruction Co. v. Velayutham (2022) 8 SCC 210 and Satya Pal Anand (2016) 10 SCC 767 – Registration function is executive, not quasi-judicial – Disputes over execution or title to be resolved in civil court, not by Sub-Registrar [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Refusal memo dated 02.09.2025 quashed – Respondent Sub-Registrar directed to register sale deed dated 25.08.2025 within two weeks – Writ petition allowed [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law - Rape – Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard of Review – No Interference – State challenged acquittal in rape case – Held: Acquittal grants double presumption of innocence – Unless findings are perverse, Appellate Court must refrain from interfering – Trial Court’s view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 23].

Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Requirement of Sterling Quality – Not Met – Sole testimony of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if it inspires confidence – In present case, her version found improbable, inconsistent, and lacking natural conduct during and after incident – Absence of injuries and contradictions undermined credibility – Not a "sterling witness" as per Supreme Court precedent – Conviction cannot be based on her statement alone [Paras 14-18, 21-22].

Medical and Circumstantial Evidence – No Support to Prosecution Case – Medical report showed no injuries or signs of resistance – Lack of physical or circumstantial corroboration of forced sexual act – Conduct of prosecutrix, including delay in reporting and failure to inform close relatives, found unnatural – Supports conclusion of consensual interaction or false implication [Paras 16-20].

Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence – Higher Degree of Proof in Serious Offences – Court reaffirmed strict standards for conviction in offences like rape – Presumption of innocence reinforced on acquittal – When testimony is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to accused – Reversal of acquittal without compelling grounds impermissible [Paras 9, 22-23].

Final Outcome – Acquittal Upheld – Bail Bonds Directed Under BNSS – High Court found no error in Trial Court judgment – Appeal dismissed – Respondent directed to furnish bail bond under Section 481 of BNSS in event of SLP before Supreme Court [Paras 23-24].

Declaration, Possession And Injunction - Benami – Fiduciary Capacity Exception – Sections 4(1) & 4(3)(b) of the 1988 Act – Exception Not Attracted – Appellant (niece) claimed that her paternal uncle held the allotted/leased/sold house benami for her benefit because she funded part of the price and reposed trust – Held: Mere relationship and past financial dealings do not establish a fiduciary capacity; the parties lived separately, the uncle was financially independent, in possession, and obtained lease/sale deed in his own name; exception under Section 4(3) not made out [Paras 35-39].

Benami – Tests & Burden – Six Indicia Reiterated – Appeal Evaluated on Source of Funds, Possession, Motive, Relationship, Custody of Title, Conduct – Appellant contributed ≈25% (₹8.45 lakhs) while respondent paid the balance (≈₹25 lakhs); respondent remained in possession; no credible motive for benami made out; custody of title with respondent; conduct consistent with respondent’s ownership – Held: Transaction not benami; plaintiff failed to discharge strict burden [Paras 29-30, 38-39].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Scope – Reappreciation of evidence leads to same conclusion as trial court – Trial court’s partial decree for refund with interest upheld; no illegality in rejecting declaration/possession claims [Paras 39-40].

Relief – Money Claim – Interest – Refund of ₹8,46,865/- with interest @6% p.a. from dates of payment till realization – Trial court’s direction affirmed; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 39-43].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 06.04.2013 affirmed; interim order vacated; office to prepare decree [Paras 40-44].

Tenancy Law - Civil Revision – Eviction Orders under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sham Sale Transaction – Revisions Allowed – The petitioners-tenants challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on grounds of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – Authorities below accepted the landlord’s title on basis of registered sale deed – High Court held that the transfer of property in favour of the landlady was a sham transaction devised to procure eviction, evidenced by intra-family conveyance, contradictory testimony, and inconsistent consideration – Findings of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation based on misreading and ignoring crucial evidence – Held: Eviction orders unsustainable – Revisions allowed and appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – Interference when findings are perverse/misread – Applied – The Court reiterated that while revisional power does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as in appeal, interference is warranted where findings are perverse, based on misreading, or lead to miscarriage of justice – Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the Court examined whether the authorities below misread crucial evidence and concluded that they did, justifying interference [Paras 11–12].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Attornment on Transfer – Title enquiry in rent proceedings – Exception for apparent fraud/sham – Though a registered sale deed generally suffices to establish landlordship and attornment follows transfer, the Court held that, on the peculiar facts (intra-family transfers, earlier NRI proceedings, immediate re-transfer, and inconsistent testimony), the sale in favour of the landlady was a sham devised to procure eviction – Authorities below erred in treating the sale as unimpeachable without engaging with the broader context and record [Paras 12.2, 14–16].

NRI Eviction Proceedings – Earlier petitions withdrawn – Res judicata – Not a bar to fresh cause – Contextual relevance – The earlier NRI petitions withdrawn after leave to defend did not operate as res judicata; however, their sequence (transfer to NRI relative to invoke special provisions, withdrawal upon challenge, followed by reconveyance and fresh eviction plea) was material context evidencing a contrived scheme, which the authorities below failed to weigh [Paras 13, 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Inconsistencies – Sale consideration timing (cheque dated 06.12.2016) vis-à-vis sale deed (12.12.2017) – Non-negotiation of price – Ignorance of market rate/ownership change – Cash vs cheque contradictions – Cumulative effect – The landlady’s evidence revealed material inconsistencies suggesting lack of genuine consideration and awareness—indicative of a colourable device; authorities’ omission to grapple with these contradictions amounted to misreading of evidence [Paras 15.1–16.2].

Eviction Grounds – Bona fide Requirement & Ceased Occupation – Concurrent findings set aside – Since the foundational premise (genuineness of landlord’s title and bona fides) was vitiated by misreading and perversity, the resultant eviction orders on bona fide requirement and ceased occupation could not stand – Revisions allowed; impugned appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 16.3–17].

NDPS – Possession of 20 kg Poppy Husk – Section 15 NDPS Act – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Appellant convicted for intermediate quantity – No minimum punishment prescribed – Trial Court imposed 1½ years RI – High Court considered that appellant already served 4 months, faced trial for 14 years, not involved in other cases, and has since lived peacefully – Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 10,000 – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 6, 9-11].

Sentencing – Discretion and Proportionality – Awarding of sentence not a formality – Courts must balance deterrence with reformation and proportionality – Reliance placed on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1166 – Punishment should suit crime and offender; undue harshness avoided [Paras 7-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Proceedings – Occurrence in 2011, conviction in 2012, appeal decided in 2025 – Prolonged pendency and mental agony considered as mitigating factor – Sentence reduced accordingly [Paras 6, 10].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 payable within one month, default leading to one month RI – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly – Partly Allowed – Trial Court convicted both appellants under Sections 302, 149, 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Appellant Kamakhya Singh’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC upheld based on direct evidence and credible eyewitness testimony – Conviction of Binod Singh under Section 302/149 IPC set aside due to lack of proof of unlawful assembly or shared common object – However, Binod Singh convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing gunshot injury – Sentences modified accordingly – Trial Court’s reliance on related witnesses upheld – Appeal disposed of with directions for surrender [Paras 1, 78-85].

Criminal Trial – Murder – Credibility of Related Witnesses – Conviction Upheld in Part – Prosecution’s witnesses were close relatives and three were injured in the incident – Court held that relatedness alone does not undermine credibility when testimony is consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and withstands cross-examination – Presence at crime scene proved – Kamakhya Singh’s conviction sustained on this basis [Paras 32-36, 64-70].

Unlawful Assembly – Conviction Under Section 149 IPC – Set Aside – Trial Court’s finding that accused acted in furtherance of common object not supported by evidence – No proof of assembly of five or more with shared common object – Omnibus allegations against unidentified persons insufficient – Binod Singh’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside – Also Section 148 IPC not attracted [Paras 37-52].

Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Affirmed – Eyewitnesses Baleshwar, Umesh, and Dharmendra were also victims of gunshot injuries – Court emphasized high value of testimony of injured witnesses – Medical evidence supported injuries – Their version remained unshaken under cross-examination [Paras 33-36, 64-70].

Identification of Accused – Source of Light – Objection Overruled – Although lanterns were not seized by the Investigating Officer, witnesses consistently stated they identified accused in lantern light – Court accepted explanation, noting accused were known residents of the village – Held: Identification reliable – No prejudice caused by minor investigative lapses [Paras 76-77].

Defective Investigation – Impact – No Benefit to Accused – Though the investigation was perfunctory and lacked sketch map, independent witnesses, or seizure of lighting source, court held that lapses did not affect prosecution case where eyewitness testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated – Conviction based on substantive evidence upheld [Paras 60-61].

Vicarious Liability – Constructive Liability Under Section 149 IPC – Not Established – Court reiterated legal standards for invoking Section 149 IPC – Mere presence in a group with arms not enough without clear proof of common object – Prosecution failed to prove that those standing outside shared intent – Hence, constructive liability under Section 149 IPC not attracted [Paras 38-52].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Testimony – Strengthened Prosecution Case – Post-mortem and injury reports confirmed firearm injuries sustained by deceased and injured victims – Though one Medical Officer was not examined, his report was accepted without dispute – Court found consistency between medical records and witness statements [Paras 70-75].

Decision: Modification of Conviction and Sentence – Kamakhya Singh’s life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC upheld – Binod Singh’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC reversed – He was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI with fine – Court directed set-off for time already served and ordered surrender [Paras 78-85].

Service Law – ACR/APAR – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Writ Court not Appellate Over Tribunal – Where the Competent Authority gives reasoned orders on each adverse entry after examining records and partially expunges where warranted, Tribunal’s refusal to re-appraise is not perverse – High Court affirms that grading and personality-assessment are matters of subjective satisfaction, ordinarily immune from interference absent perversity or procedural illegality [Paras 18-21].

CCS (Conduct) Rules – Rule 3(2)(ii) “Best Judgment” – Officer’s Duty to Act Judiciously vis-à-vis Superiors’ Directions – “Best judgment” does not license an officer to sit in judgment over or defy lawful directions – Tribunal’s construction upheld as a plausible view in writ jurisdiction – Mere disagreement with policy/implementation cannot sanitize adverse entries when targets remain unachieved and record shows non-cooperation [Paras 15-16, 19-20].

Adverse Remarks – Communication and Representation – AIS (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 r.8 & r.10 – DoPT OMs (20/05/1972; 14/05/2009; 23/07/2009) – Procedural Compliance – Representations considered through detailed, reasoned orders; some pejorative phrases expunged while core remarks retained – Such calibrated consideration satisfies r.10 and administrative instructions; no ground to quash surviving entries [Paras 17-19].

Post-Retirement Challenge – Consequential Relief – Petitions filed after superannuation without specific consequential claims – Government’s contention that dispute is academic noted – Court decides on merits but finds no case for interference – Reliefs held inconsequential in the absence of demonstrated legal infirmity in the process or perversity on the face of the record [Paras 11, 20-22].

Connected Matters – Mixed Outcomes Before CAT – In OA 436/2014 the Tribunal directed consideration for deletion of the observation “prone to commit financial irregularities”; others dismissed – High Court, addressing the common challenge by the Petitioner for fuller expunction, declines to expand relief and maintains the Tribunal’s calibrated orders [Paras 5, 20-22].

Decision – Original Petitions Dismissed – CAT’s view sustained; no perversity or procedural violation shown – Appreciation recorded for amicus curiae [Paras 21-23].

Patent Law – Refusal of Application – Section 117A of Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the order of the Assistant Controller refusing its national phase application for “material comprising a stack of thin layers” on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 25(1)(e) of the Act – The Court held that comparative data furnished by the appellant failed to establish technical advancement over prior art; inconsistencies in the expert affidavit further weakened the case – Prior arts already disclosed silver-based stacks with Nickel/Chromium blocking layers and dielectric coatings where optical properties were tunable by routine optimisation – Held: refusal justified; appeal dismissed [Paras 5–9, 30–44, 60–72].

Inventive Step – Requirement of Technical Advancement – Section 2(1)(ja) – Not Satisfied – On analysing comparative tables in the complete specification and expert affidavit, Court held that claimed invention did not materially improve over comparative example (Cmp.3), which already achieved identical performance parameters – Omission of data for solar factor, ET%, ERext% and shifting of target values further undermined credibility – No technical advancement demonstrated [Paras 30–40].

Obviousness – Combination of Prior Arts – Mosaicing Permissible – Applied – Court affirmed Controller’s reliance on WO 2014/164674 (Doc A), WO 2014177798 (Doc B), WO 2011062574 (D2), and applicant’s own prior filings – Held: where prior arts lie in same technical field, a skilled person would naturally combine them – No hindsight reconstruction shown; the claimed stack was an obvious optimisation of known parameters [Paras 45–63].

Person Skilled in the Art – Higher Standard under Indian Law – Court reiterated that Section 2(1)(ja) contemplates a professional with more than average skill, practical experience and knowledge of prior art, not merely an “ordinary” skilled person – Controller correctly identified PSITA as a person conversant with glass construction and manufacturing [Paras 51–54].

Foreign Patent Grant – No Binding Effect in India – Rejected – Grant of corresponding patent in France/EPO has no relevance as patent rights are territorial; Indian standards under Section 2(1)(ja) apply independently [Para 70–71].

Decision – Patent application refused on grounds of lack of inventive step and obviousness – Appeal dismissed; interim order vacated [Paras 72–75].