Service Law – Pay Protection – Ex-Servicemen – Discrimination among Constables appointed from same recruitment list – Violation of Article 14 – All respondents were ex-servicemen selected under the same 2018 recruitment list – Due to COVID-19 related constraints, training was conducted in four separate batches and appointments staggered – Only the first batch received pay protection while others were denied – Held: All candidates formed a homogeneous group as per the same advertisement and selection process – No intelligible differentia existed to justify differential treatment – Administrative exigencies like pandemic or infrastructure constraints cannot be grounds for hostile discrimination – Judgment of learned single-judge granting parity upheld [Paras 3, 5, 15-25].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Permissible Classification – Select list cannot be fragmented for pay or service benefits based on training schedule imposed by the State – Training is not part of the selection process but follows appointment under Rule 18 – Discrimination based on batch-wise training lacks rational nexus with the object of selection and violates equality before law [Paras 13, 16-20].

Recruitment – Service Benefits – Uniform Entitlements – No statutory rule authorizes different treatment in pay protection within the same select list – Court reiterates principles from Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar – Entire class entitled to uniform benefits including pay protection [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Special Appeals dismissed – Judgment of single-judge affirmed – State directed to grant pay protection and consequential benefits to all affected candidates within twelve weeks [Para 26].

Matrimonial Law – Anti-Suit Injunction – Divorce Proceedings – Foreign Court Jurisdiction – Indian trial court granted ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting divorce and maintenance proceedings in UK Family Court – Held: Principle of forum non conveniens cannot be invoked by Indian court to restrain proceedings in a foreign court – Jurisdictional challenge must be addressed by the UK Court itself – Both spouses had deep-rooted residential and financial ties with the UK – Respondent-husband’s claims of inconvenience held to be untenable [Paras 35-44]

Private International Law – Competence of Foreign Court – UK Family Court – Wife residing in the UK since 2015 and instituted proceedings in UK under UK law – UK court's competence under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973 already under adjudication by the UK Court itself – Indian court must defer to such determination – Even under Hindu Marriage Act, territorial jurisdiction principles could prima facie support UK jurisdiction based on wife’s residence and last place of cohabitation [Paras 45-53]

Foreign Judgments – Section 13 CPC – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Whether ground recognized under Indian Law – Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita held that irretrievable breakdown may constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Ratio forms binding precedent under Article 141 – Distinguished from Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, which did not overrule Rakesh Raman – UK proceeding not necessarily founded on refusal to recognize Indian law [Paras 54-62]

Comity of Courts – Respect for Foreign Proceedings – Indian court’s interference with valid maintenance order passed by UK court violates principle of comity – UK court had already fixed the matter for jurisdictional adjudication and stayed its own proceedings – Premature for Indian court to restrain UK proceedings through anti-suit injunction [Paras 63-71]

Civil Procedure – Section 10 CPC – Non-Applicability to Foreign Suits – Mere earlier filing of divorce suit by husband in India not sufficient to justify anti-suit injunction – Section 10 CPC applies only where both suits are in Indian courts – No authority for Indian court to stay a foreign proceeding [Para 76]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned anti-suit injunction order dated 01/11/2025 set aside – Respondent's plea for stay of judgment rejected – Observations made are tentative and will not prejudice either party in Indian or UK proceedings [Paras 76-79]

Criminal Law – Complaint Case – Pre-Cognizance Stage under BNSS, 2023 – Issuance of Notice to Accused – Scope of Section 223 BNSS – Two criminal petitions filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings in C.R. Case Nos. 143/2025 and 144/2025 pending before JMFC, Morigaon – Notices issued to accused prior to examination of complainants and witnesses on oath – Held: Proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS mandates opportunity of hearing to accused before taking cognizance, but such notice can be issued only after examination of complainant and witnesses on oath – Mechanical issuance of notice without compliance of Section 223(1) vitiates proceedings [Paras 2–4, 17, 27–28].

BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 vis-à-vis Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Change in Procedural Law – Under Cr.P.C., examination of accused not required at cognizance stage – BNSS introduces mandatory pre-cognizance hearing to accused – However, logical sequence requires Magistrate first to examine complainant and witnesses on oath – Cognizance arises only upon judicial application of mind after such examination – Notice to accused prior thereto is premature and contrary to statute [Paras 12–16].

Magistrate’s Powers – Dismissal of Complaint – Section 226 BNSS – Magistrate empowered to dismiss complaint after examining complainant and witnesses on oath without hearing accused – Issuing notice to accused before such examination would render Section 226 otiose – Harmonious construction of Sections 223 and 226 BNSS requires examination of complainant first, followed by notice to accused if complaint survives dismissal stage [Paras 24–27].

Quashing of Proceedings – Mechanical Orders by Magistrate – Impugned orders dated 21.02.2025 issuing notice passed without examination of complainants or witnesses – Non-application of judicial mind – Orders held violative of statutory mandate under Section 223 BNSS – Proceedings liable to be set aside [Paras 27–28].

Remand – Fresh Consideration by Magistrate – Matters remanded to JMFC, Morigaon – Direction to examine complainants and witnesses on oath and thereafter proceed in accordance with Sections 223(1), 226 and other relevant provisions of BNSS – Liberty granted to accused to raise plea of civil dispute before Magistrate [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Criminal Petitions partly allowed – Orders dated 21.02.2025 in C.R. Case Nos. 143/2025 and 144/2025 set aside and quashed – Matters remanded for fresh proceedings in accordance with law – Petitions disposed of.

Freedom Fighters Pension – Central Scheme vs State Scheme – Eligibility Conditions – Mere grant of State Freedom Fighters Pension does not confer automatic entitlement to Central Freedom Fighters Pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 – Central Scheme is document-based and governed strictly by its own eligibility criteria – High Court cannot dilute or expand scheme conditions in exercise of judicial review [Paras 6, 10, 13–15].

Welfare Scheme – Strict Compliance – Judicial Review – Welfare and concessionary schemes must be implemented strictly in accordance with prescribed terms and conditions – Courts cannot relax eligibility requirements on sympathetic considerations as it would result in expansion of policy and potential misuse – Held: Liberal interpretation contrary to scheme impermissible [Paras 6, 14–15].

Evidence – Freedom Fighters Pension – Documentary Proof – Under SSS Scheme, imprisonment claims must be supported by jail records or valid secondary evidence along with Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) – Co-prisoner Certificates without NARC and without proof of certifier’s own minimum jail suffering are insufficient – Rejection by Central Government held justified [Paras 11–14].

State Pension – Central Pension – Distinction – State and Central Freedom Fighters Pension Schemes operate independently with distinct eligibility conditions – Acceptance under State Scheme does not ipso facto bind Central Government – Principle reaffirmed by Supreme Court precedents [Paras 8, 10, 13].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court – Binding Nature – Reliance placed on Jagdamba Devi v. Union of India, Union of India v. A. Alagam Perumal Kone and W.B. Freedom Fighters’ Organisation v. Union of India – Held: Courts cannot assess sufficiency of documents or substitute administrative scrutiny under pension schemes [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order of Single Judge dated 28.10.2020 set aside – Rejection of Central Freedom Fighters Pension upheld – Liberty granted to legal heirs to reapply if requisite documents are produced – No costs.

Criminal Law – Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Framing of Charges – Petitioner challenged trial court order framing charges under IPC and Arms Act – Claimed alibi of being detained by police on the date of incident – Trial Court held that prima facie case existed based on statements of police witnesses identifying petitioner as part of mob – High Court upheld finding – Held: At charge stage, only prima facie evidence needed – No error in trial court's conclusion [Paras 18–23].

Criminal Law – National Security Act – Petitioner was detained under NSA and released shortly before arrest in present case – Alleged mala fide action by State – High Court held that NSA detention does not negate evidence pointing to petitioner’s involvement in mob violence – Detention history not sufficient to rebut eye-witness identification [Paras 4–6, 12, 20].

Evidentiary Threshold – Prima Facie Standard at Charge Stage – Presence of direct witness statements (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) sufficient to frame charges – Petitioner’s claims require evaluation at trial, not discharge stage – Cited Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403 to reaffirm that detailed scrutiny of evidence is inappropriate at this stage [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order framing charges under IPC and Arms Act upheld – No ground made out for interference under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 23–24].

Criminal Law – Sections 279, 338, 304A  IPC - Motor Vehicle Accident – Acquittal – State appealed against the acquittal of respondent who was accused of causing death of two persons and injury to another due to rash and negligent driving – Prosecution alleged that respondent was driving an uninsured motorcycle that first collided with the injured’s motorcycle and then with the victims' – Trial court found no direct evidence proving rashness or negligence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: PW-1 (injured eyewitness) admitted he fell unconscious after the impact and had no memory of events thereafter – FIR was based on a statement prepared by the IO and not dictated by the injured himself – No independent evidence proving manner of driving – Legal presumption under res ipsa loquitur held inapplicable due to lack of corroborative facts – No error in granting benefit of doubt [Paras 23-36].

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – PW-1 claimed to have seen the accused and described the vehicle as coming at high speed – In cross-examination, admitted unconsciousness and confirmed he had no recollection of how the accident occurred – Also stated that he signed a pre-prepared complaint by IO – MLC stated he remembered nothing – Identity of accused as rider not disputed, but rashness/negligence remained unproven – Site plan failed to clarify collision sequence – Thus, eyewitness testimony held insufficient to establish guilt [Paras 25, 28-30, 33-34].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Legal Threshold – High Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only when findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court had rightly assessed lack of credible and consistent testimony – Held: Mere occurrence of accident or tragic outcome cannot substitute for proof of offence – Acquittal justified in absence of cogent evidence [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – No interference warranted with trial court’s findings.

Limitation Law - Review – Delay in Filing – Condonation of Delay – Review Petition filed with delay of 5743 days from judgment date and 489 days from dismissal of SLP – Explanation based on routine administrative process, file movement, legal opinion, and internal approvals – Held: Reasons offered by the State reflect gross negligence, red-tapism, and callous approach – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Law of limitation binds all parties, including the State – Petition dismissed [Paras 6–23].

Limitation – Delay by State – No Special Treatment – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that delay by government departments cannot be condoned merely due to inefficiency or file processing – State must act diligently – Law of limitation applies equally to government and private parties – Casual explanation based on administrative routine is insufficient to constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 8–13, 21].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Litigation – Supreme Court had already dismissed SLP against the same judgment citing both delay and merits – Review Petition effectively attempts to reopen what has attained finality – Held: Review jurisdiction cannot override or dilute findings of Supreme Court – Attempt to revisit settled matter rejected [Paras 5, 24].

Decision: Delay condonation application rejected – Consequently, Civil Misc. Review Petition also dismissed – State failed to offer sufficient cause for inordinate delay – Judgment dated 13.11.2009 attains finality [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – Acquittal – Appellants convicted for abduction and murder of diamond delivery boy for stealing diamonds – Case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied on “last seen together”, CCTV footage, mobile call data, and recovery of diamonds – High Court held that identification of accused by witnesses was vitiated due to prior exposure to their photographs – TIP unreliable – Last seen theory failed due to lack of close time proximity to recovery of body – Medical evidence did not confirm time of death – Chain of circumstances held broken – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 32-52, 68-69].

Evidence Act – Section 65-B – CCTV Footage – Admissibility – Non-functional Playback and Witness Denial – Though original DVR and hard-disk produced, CCTV pen-drive was corrupted and could not be played in Court – Witness (PW34) failed to identify accused from unclear footage – Held: Circumstance of CCTV presence not proved beyond doubt – Could not be relied upon [Paras 53-57].

Identification Parade – Test Identification – Vitiated by Prior Exposure – TIP rendered unreliable where photographs of accused were shown to key witnesses (PWs 15–19) before TIP – Last seen evidence collapsed due to tainted identification – Reliance on Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180 [Paras 44-47].

Recovery – Failure to Produce Stolen Articles in Court – Diamonds Not Produced – Recovery of stolen diamonds from accused’s home not proved as diamonds were never produced before court – Violated rule laid in Niranjan Panja v. State of West Bengal – Motive of robbery also held unproven [Paras 58-60].

Recovery of Weapons – From Open/Public Places – Not Reliable – Knife and belt allegedly used in crime recovered from accessible public places – Held: Recoveries from such locations cannot be treated as strong incriminating evidence – Relied on Jaikam Khan v. State of UP, (2021) 13 SCC 716 [Paras 61-62].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard in Circumstantial Cases – Held: Prosecution failed to exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt – Where multiple interpretations are possible, benefit must go to the accused – Conviction reversed [Paras 67-69].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – To be released forthwith unless wanted in another case – Directed to furnish PR bonds under Section 481 BNSS [Para 69].

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction - Infringement – Deceptive Similarity – Bata’s registered trademark ‘POWER’ found to be distinctive and associated with its footwear – Leayan’s mark ‘POWER FLEX’ held deceptively similar due to complete subsumption of Bata’s mark – Similarity of goods (both being footwear) supports likelihood of confusion or association – Injunction against Leayan upheld [Paras 33.1–33.8].

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Principles – Delay and acquiescence not a bar to injunction where infringement is found – Midas Hygiene Industries followed – Plea of delay rejected as Bata had opposed Leayan’s trademark registration and evidence of Leayan’s use was found insufficient and unauthenticated [Paras 35.1–35.6].

Trademark Law – Descriptive vs Suggestive Marks – POWER held suggestive and not descriptive when used for footwear – Suggestive marks are registrable and protectable – Leayan’s argument that POWER is a laudatory or common word rejected – POWER FLEX not descriptive of footwear characteristics – Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act not attracted [Paras 34.4–34.7].

Trademark Law – Honest Concurrent Use – Not a defense to infringement – Leayan’s reliance on prior usage and advertisements not supported by adequate evidence – Invoices and ads did not link use to POWER FLEX as a brand – No evidence of honest concurrent use [Paras 35.3–35.4].

Pleading and Procedural Fairness – Party Impleadment – Impleadment of retailer CBH as Defendant No. 1 not irregular or improper – No procedural law prescribes defendant sequencing – Direction of Single Judge to Registry requiring contesting party to be arrayed as Defendant No. 1 set aside [Paras 31.1–31.15].

Relief – Existing Stock – No error in allowing Leayan to exhaust existing stock under Court supervision – Adequate safeguards imposed – Objections to over-sale reserved for appropriate remedy before Single Judge [Paras 38–40].

Tagline Use – No Confusion – Use of tagline ‘THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER’ permitted – No undue emphasis on POWER found – Tagline unlikely to create confusion with Bata’s registered mark – Injunction rightly denied for tagline [Para 38(i)].

Decision: Appeals dismissed except to the extent that deletion of Chawla Boot House from the suit is set aside – Single Judge’s interim order upheld – Liberty reserved to Bata to move Single Judge on excess sale of stock [Paras 41–42].