Promotion and Seniority Issue - Challenge against HQ DG BSF order dated February 12, 2015, for non-restoration of seniority - Petitioner's ACRs for 2005-06 & 2007-08 initially marked below benchmark, leading to his non-inclusion in promotion list - ACRs later upgraded on representation - Petitioner contends supersession due to non-communication of below benchmark ACRs and seeks promotion with retrospective seniority [Paras 1-5, 14, 31].

Legal Framework - Application of DoP&T's OM dated April 13, 2010 - OM applied for future DPCs only - Petitioner's case relates to DPC held prior to the OM, leading to rejection of retrospective promotion claim by respondents [Paras 12, 13, 19, 28-30].

Supreme Court Precedents - Reliance on Dev Dutt v. UOI (2008) 8 SCC 725 - Principles of upgraded ACRs and retrospective consideration for promotion - Comparative analysis with similarly situated officer, Lala Krishan Kumar Lal, who received retrospective seniority - Claim of discriminatory treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 6-7, 34].

Decision - Court held that upgraded ACRs merit review by DPC - Petitioner entitled to consideration for promotion from date junior was promoted, subject to fitment - Impugned order quashed - Respondents directed to undertake promotional exercise within eight weeks [Paras 31-37].

Trade Mark Infringement – Permanent Injunction – Well-known Mark Declaration – Suit against Unauthorized Use of Trademark 'HALDIRAM' and 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' – Plaintiffs, Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd., seek permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing upon their registered trademarks and for passing off their products as those of Plaintiffs – Plaintiffs also seek declaration of their marks as well-known – Evidence shows extensive unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ marks by Defendants – Held, Defendants' conduct constitutes infringement and passing off – Permanent injunction granted against Defendants from using the marks ‘HALDIRAM’, ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, or any deceptively similar mark – Marks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ declared as well-known trademarks. Damages of Rs. 50 lakhs awarded to Plaintiffs along with Rs. 2 lakhs as costs. [Paras 35-68]

Infringement of Trademarks – Analysis – Plaintiffs' trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ found to be used by Defendants without authorization – Unauthorized use on a variety of food products and related materials – Infringement established due to Defendants' unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ marks for identical services, satisfying the triple identity test – Defendants’ conduct found to be in violation of the Plaintiffs’ trademark rights. [Paras 40-41]

Well-known Trademark – Criteria and Declaration – 'HALDIRAM' and 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' declared as well-known trademarks – Court considered factors such as duration, extent, geographical area of use, promotion, advertising, distinctiveness, and recognition in the public – Plaintiffs’ marks found to enjoy substantial recognition and goodwill, meriting the status of well-known trademarks – Declaration to aid in broader protection of Plaintiffs’ marks against misuse and infringement. [Paras 55-66]

Damages – Assessment and Award – Plaintiffs awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs for infringement by Defendants – Exemplary damages granted considering the extent of unauthorized use and impact on Plaintiffs’ reputation – Defendants' failure to appear or present evidence weighed in the decision – Damages aimed at compensating Plaintiffs and deterring future infringements. [Paras 43-52]

Costs – Award – Plaintiffs awarded Rs. 2 lakhs as costs – Consideration given to Plaintiffs' legal expenses and efforts to protect their trademarks – Award in line with principles of fair compensation and discouraging frivolous litigation. [Para 53]

Criminal Revision Petition – Discharge of Respondents by Trial Court Challenged – FIR for offenses under Sections 420/406/468/471/384/120B IPC – Allegations of illegal transfer of shares and fraudulent removal as director – High Court sets aside Trial Court order discharging respondents and remands matter for fresh consideration – Held that Trial Court failed to properly consider chargesheet and other materials provided by the Investigating Officer. [Paras 1, 18-21]

Role of Petitioner as Director and Shareholder – Contention – Alleged illegal transfer of shares and fraudulent removal as director by respondents – Petitioner claims shares were transferred and directorship removed without his consent using forged documents – Issues were also raised before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with contrasting findings – High Court finds that Trial Court did not adequately consider the chargesheet and investigation materials. [Paras 2-7, 18-21]

Decision – Discharge of Respondents Set Aside – Delhi High Court sets aside Trial Court’s order discharging respondents – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on the point of charge – High Court emphasizes need for careful examination of chargesheet and other investigation materials – Directs Trial Court to provide opportunity to parties for representation. [Paras 21-22]

Findings of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – Role in Criminal Proceedings – High Court notes that NCLT’s findings were considered by Trial Court – Observes that material before NCLT was not same as before the criminal court – Emphasizes distinction between civil and criminal proceedings and different standards of proof required. [Paras 3, 19-20]

Acid Attack – Identification of Assailants – Contradictions and Inconsistencies in Victims' Testimonies – Held – Discrepancies in victims' testimonies regarding the description and actions of assailants raise doubts about accurate identification. Contradictions include inconsistencies about the movement of the motorcycle, the clothing of the assailants, and the direction from which the acid was thrown. These inconsistencies, coupled with the absence of identification of the assailants at the initial stages, weaken the prosecution's case. The judgment highlights the challenges in victim identification in traumatic events, especially under low light conditions and without corroborative evidence. [Paras 43-86]

Conduct of Investigation – Reliability of Evidence – Held – Observes shortcomings in the investigation, including discrepancies in the description of the crime scene and recovery of evidence. The absence of public witnesses during critical moments of the investigation, such as the arrest of accused and recovery of incriminating materials, further weakens the credibility of the prosecution's case. This highlights the importance of meticulous and transparent investigative procedures in criminal cases. [Paras 89-96]

Victim Compensation – Acid Attack Survivors – Directions – Recognizes the grave physical and emotional impact of the acid attack on the victims, despite the acquittal of the accused. Directs the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to grant substantial compensation to the victims for their rehabilitation and medical treatment. Emphasizes the need for continued medical assessment and explores employment opportunities for the victims, underlining the court's role in ensuring the welfare of acid attack survivors beyond the trial. [Paras 100-107]

Acquittal of Accused – Analysis of Evidence – Held – The prosecution fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Contradictions in victims' testimonies, discrepancies in investigative procedures, and lack of corroborative evidence lead to the acquittal. The judgment demonstrates the principle of the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 78-99, 109]

Decision – Acquittal of Accused – The Court upholds the trial court's decision, acquitting the accused due to inconsistencies in the identification of the assailants and flaws in the investigation process. Simultaneously, acknowledges the severity of the victims' suffering and directs comprehensive compensation and rehabilitation measures. [Para 109]

Recovery of Arrears of Maintenance – Enforcement against Deceased's Estate – Criminal Revision Petition challenging the first appellate court's decision to allow recovery of maintenance arrears from deceased's assets – Trial court dismissed maintenance enforcement against deceased – Appellate court allowed recovery from deceased’s assets, including service benefits – High Court upholds recovery right, but sets aside interest awarded on arrears. [Paras 1-19]

Enforcement of Interim Maintenance Order Against Deceased's Estate – Legal Position – Held – Interim maintenance order can be enforced against deceased’s estate – Entitlement of the widow to recover arrears of maintenance from husband's assets reaffirmed – Maintenance arrears deemed recoverable from husband’s service benefits or assets inherited from him. [Paras 13-14, 17]

Interest on Maintenance Arrears – Legal Consideration – High Court sets aside 12% interest on arrears of maintenance awarded by the appellate court – Considered the financial position and circumstances of the mother-in-law (respondent No.3), who has not received any service benefits and is at an advanced age – Interest deemed not legally sustainable. [Paras 18-19]

Final Decision – Partial Allowance of Revision Petition – High Court partially allows revision petition – Confirms entitlement of petitioner for maintenance arrears but sets aside grant of interest – Judgment and order of first appellate court modified accordingly.

Arbitration Agreement - Referral to Arbitration - Interpretation of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitioner sought reference to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the agreement governing their relationship - Trial Court rejected the application, citing failure to produce original or duly certified copy of the agreement - Petitioner contended that a duly certified copy of the agreement, attested by a Notary Public, was provided, fulfilling the statutory requirement - Held, Trial Court's refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration was erroneous - Section 8 mandates referral to arbitration upon satisfaction of specified conditions, including existence of an arbitration agreement and timely application by a party - Once prerequisites are met, Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration - Court must not delve into detailed analysis of agreement's terms, but ensure prima facie validity of arbitration clause - Compliance with Section 8(2) satisfied, rendering Court empowered to refer the matter to arbitration - Trial Court directed to refer the matter to arbitrator within specified timeframe - Revisional application allowed.

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petition for grant of regular bail – Offences under Sections 21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner found in possession of 950 intoxicating capsules – Allegation of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 608 grams – Petitioner contends discrepancies in signature language on notice under Section 50 NDPS Act and FIR – Respondent asserts typographical error – Court refrains from delving into veracity of notice but acknowledges signature mismatch – Petitioner's first-time offender status and concluded investigation considered – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act – Mismatch in language of petitioner's signature – Respondent explains typographical error by investigating officer – Court refrains from adjudicating on notice's authenticity but notes discrepancy – Signature language inconsistency observed. [Paras 4-7]

Grant of Bail – Considerations – Petitioner's incarceration period, first-time offender status, and concluded investigation weighed – Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent misuse and ensure trial attendance – No expression of opinion on case merits. [Paras 8-11]

Live-in Relationship - Protection of Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Entitlement to Protection: The petitioners, involved in a live-in relationship, seek protection of their life and liberty. The court acknowledges the right to life and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution, including the freedom to choose a partner, whether through marriage or a live-in relationship. Live-in relationships, though not universally accepted, are recognized by law and individuals involved are entitled to equal protection under the law. The court emphasizes that no citizen can take the law into their own hands. [Paras 10-11]

Protection Granted Regardless of Legal Status of Relationship: Despite the legal status of the relationship being questioned and criminal cases registered against the parties, the court emphasizes the paramount consideration of protecting life and liberty. Protection is granted by the court without delving into the legality of the relationship, ensuring that individuals fearing harm receive necessary safeguards. [Paras 12-14]

Directions to Authorities: The court directs respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioners' representation regarding threat perception and to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. However, the order does not preclude the initiation of legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted. [Paras 15-17]

Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR No. 46 Dated 11.05.2008 under Section 306/34 IPC – Suicide of Aruna Rani – FIR based on delayed statement of Paramjit Kaur citing harassment by 11 individuals – Suicide note in deceased’s handwriting but no direct evidence of abetment by named individuals – High Court finds no proximate link or clear mens rea for abetment – Held, continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of legal process – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 1-30]

Ingredients of Section 306/107 IPC – Abetment of Suicide – Analysis of legal requirements – Court finds absence of intentional instigation or aiding in the commission of suicide – Marriage disputes and subsequent events not leading to a direct conclusion of abetment by the petitioners – Suicide note insufficient to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC. [Paras 10-29]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Related Proceedings – Considering the facts and absence of clear mens rea or instigation for suicide – FIR No. 46 dated 11.05.2008 under Section 306/34 IPC and all consequent proceedings against petitioners quashed – Petitions allowed. [Para 30]