Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Forged Petition – Writ petition filed in the name of Adity Shivcharan Rathod found to be unauthorized and based on forged documents – Police investigation revealed petitioner had no knowledge of the case and disowned the documents – Court held filing of such petition amounts to fraud on the court [Paras 2, 10–13, 17].

Legal Ethics – Misconduct by Advocates – Investigation Ordered – Counsel named in the petition traced and found to have accepted cases through a third-party advocate – Court directed Bar Council of India to investigate professional misconduct of involved advocates – Emphasized lawyers’ duty as officers of the court and custodians of justice [Paras 18–22].

Judicial Process – Fraud on Court – Filing of multiple petitions in different names using identical documents and fabricated claims regarding property ownership – Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) 6 SCC 416 – Held: No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud – Court must protect its process from abuse [Paras 6–8, 18].

Police Investigation – Aadhaar Misuse and Forged Documents – DCP (South-East) filed status report confirming unauthorized use of petitioner’s identity – FIR directed to be lodged – Investigation to continue against all persons involved, including tracing of advocate named as intermediary [Paras 12–16].

Direction to Statutory Authorities – Bar Council of India directed to trace advocate Mr. Suraj Singh and examine involvement of Ms. Awanitika – Liberty granted to coordinate with police – MCD directed to act as per order of Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) dated 27/10/2025, staying action on impugned construction [Paras 19–24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petition found to be filed fraudulently without authorization – Matter referred to police and Bar Council of India for investigation and appropriate legal action – Directions issued for continued investigation, filing of FIR, and professional misconduct inquiry [Paras 16, 19–22, 25].

Default Bail – NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of Investigation Period – Petitioner arrested on 15.05.2025 – Statutory period of 180 days expired on 11.11.2025 – Special Court granted extension of 120 days on 31.10.2025 on report of SPP – Accused neither produced physically nor virtually and no notice given at the time of consideration of extension – Held: Non-production and absence of notice is a gross illegality affecting personal liberty under Article 21 – Extension order unsustainable – Indefeasible right to default bail accrued to the petitioner [Paras 30–32, 45–48, 54–58].

Criminal Procedure – Default Bail – Section 187 BNSS – Nature of Right – Default bail is a constitutional safeguard flowing from Article 21 and not a mere procedural formality – Continued detention beyond statutory period without a valid extension is illegal [Paras 36–41].

NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) – Extension of Time – Mandatory Compliance – Public Prosecutor’s report must indicate progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention – Compliance also requires affording the accused an opportunity to oppose the extension – Failure vitiates the extension order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Notice to Accused – Extension of Custody – Physical or Virtual Production Mandatory – Accused must be informed that application for extension is being considered – Mere production for judicial remand on the same day does not amount to valid notice – Absence of accused is not a curable irregularity but a violation of fair procedure under Article 21 [Paras 46–48, 51–53].

Judicial Custody – Same Day Production – Distinction – Order recording that accused was “in JC” does not establish presence at the time of hearing of extension application – Record must reflect production or participation of accused when extension is considered [Paras 51–53].

Default Bail Application – Erroneous Rejection – Trial Court rejected default bail on ground that extension had already been granted – Held: Since extension itself was illegal, rejection of default bail could not be sustained – Right to default bail revived automatically on expiry of 180 days [Paras 55–57].

Relief – Orders Set Aside – Extension order dated 31.10.2025 and order dated 13.11.2025 rejecting default bail quashed – Petitioner held entitled to default/statutory bail – Bail granted on conditions including furnishing of bond and surety – Petition allowed [Paras 58–60].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 31.10.2025 granting extension of investigation and order dated 13.11.2025 rejecting default bail set aside – Petitioner granted default/statutory bail subject to conditions.

Transfer of Property Act - Mortgage by Conditional Sale vs. Sale with Condition to Repurchase - Interpretation of Document - Intention of Parties - Section 58(c) of TP Act - A transaction is a "sale with a condition to repurchase" rather than a "mortgage by conditional sale" if the document clearly transfers absolute title, grants the purchaser the right to deal with the property, and lacks a debtor-creditor relationship or a clear intention to secure a loan- The intention of the parties must be gathered primarily from the unambiguous language of the document itself.

Property Law - Mortgage by Conditional Sale - Sale with Condition to Repurchase - The appellants challenged the first appellate court's decree for redemption of mortgage, arguing that the document dated 2nd July 1962 was a sale with a condition to repurchase, not a mortgage by conditional sale- The original vendor failed to exercise the repurchase option within the stipulated five-year period- The High Court, in second appeal, examined the terms of the document and the intention of the parties- Held: The document was a sale deed with a condition to repurchase, not a mortgage by conditional sale- The terms clearly indicated an absolute transfer of title to the purchaser, including the right to deal with the property, and there was no debtor-creditor relationship or intention to secure a loan- The consideration amount, though low, was not the sole factor for interpretation- Since the right to repurchase was extinguished after five years (1967) due to non-exercise, the plaintiff, as the vendor's son, was not entitled to seek redemption of a non-existent mortgage 27 years later- The first appellate court erred in misinterpreting the document- Paras [1-30]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 58(c) - Determining Nature of Transaction - Held: To determine whether a transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition to repurchase, the intention of the parties is paramount and must be gathered from the recitals of the document itself- If the language is plain and unambiguous, it must be given its true legal effect- Surrounding circumstances, such as property valuation, are relevant only if the language is ambiguous- Key factors include the existence of a debt, debtor-creditor relationship, and the right to deal with the property- Paras [15, 16, 17, 20, 27, 28]

Limitation Act, 1963 - Redemption of Mortgage - Held: A suit for redemption of mortgage must be filed within the prescribed limitation period- If the transaction is determined to be a sale with a condition to repurchase, and the right to repurchase is extinguished due to non-exercise within the stipulated time, a subsequent suit for redemption of mortgage is not maintainable- Paras [13, 26, 30]

Decision: Second Appeal allowed- The judgment and decree of the first appellate court are quashed and set aside- The trial court's judgment dismissing the suit is confirmed- Paras [31].

Custodial Violence – Suo Motu PIL on letter alleging illegal arrest and torture – Prima facie inference of custodial beating supported by contemporaneous complaints, photographs and Magistrate’s injury observations – State directed to pay interim compensation of Rs.1,50,000 with recovery from erring officials – Inquiry ordered against medical officer issuing “fit for custody” certificate despite serious injuries – Non-installation of CCTV in police station held as blatant non-compliance of Supreme Court directions [Paras 2-3, 6, 8-9, 26-33].

Public Interest Litigation – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Letter by victim’s wife alleging illegal arrest, torture and threats treated as PIL – Notice issued – SP directed to appear with records and CCTV DVR footage [Paras 2].

Police Accountability – Production of CCTV Footage – Police claim CCTV not installed at concerned police station – Court records the statement and notes systemic human rights concern – DGP interacted and expected to take corrective steps given recurring instances within 48 hours [Paras 3].

Custodial Torture – Prima Facie Assessment – State version that injuries caused in clash with villagers not accepted prima facie – Court relies on detailed complaint addressed to President of India, repeated complaints to authorities, and photographs indicating injuries consistent with custody violence – Held: case prima facie of custodial torture/beating [Paras 6, 8-9].

Arrest/Detention – Medical Treatment Duty – Primary investigation report noted injured accused should have been sent for treatment immediately but were not – Delay/omission treated as gross negligence and unprofessional conduct – Officer-in-charge suspended based on inquiry material [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Scrutiny of Injuries – Magistrate’s Observations Prevail Over Police Certificate – ACGM, Chandil recorded multiple injuries including fracture of both legs and sought explanation from Officer-in-Charge – Court notes mismatch between Magistrate’s observations and hospital certificate describing only bruises and declaring “fit for custody” – Held: certificate appears “managed” – medical officer cannot be exonerated [Paras 26-27].

Medical Negligence/Complicity – Departmental Inquiry Directed – Director, Health Services ordered to hold inquiry into issuance of medical certificate showing minor bruises and fitness for custody despite serious injuries including fractures – Report to be submitted before next hearing [Paras 27, 35-36].

Human Rights – Constitutional Safeguards – Court reiterates Article 21/22 protections and condemns any custodial violence regardless of duration or degree – Relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence including D.K. Basu guidelines and principles against third-degree methods – Emphasizes transparency and accountability in arrests and detention [Paras 14-17, 24-25].

CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Binding Supreme Court Directions – Failure to install CCTV and inability to produce footage criticized – Court holds State has blatantly violated and flouted Supreme Court directions (Shafhi Mohammad / Paramvir Singh Saini line) and cannot justify absence of footage – Time sought by State till 31.12.2025 noted in other proceedings [Para 30].

Compensation – Public Law Remedy for Article 21 Violation – Interim compensation ordered based on prima facie custodial torture and suspension order acknowledging lapses – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 within one week to victim (Tarun Mahto) – Amount to be recovered from erring officials/officers – Clarified that interim compensation will not affect victim’s right to seek additional civil/criminal compensation [Paras 31-32].

Procedure – Further Pleadings and Listing – Counter affidavit directed within four weeks – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 – Copy of order to be sent to Director, Health Services for compliance [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Interim directions issued – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 as interim compensation within one week and recover from erring officials – Director, Health Services to conduct inquiry against concerned medical officer and file report – Counter affidavit to be filed – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 [Paras 32-36].

Contract Law – Breach of Contract – Delay in Performance – Responsibility of Employer – Tender for construction of additional parking facility – Defendants invited tender without obtaining prior permission from Forest Department – Delay caused in handing over workable site – Held: Defendants responsible for delay in execution of work – However, contractor having elected to continue contract without repudiation under Section 55, not entitled to damages [Paras 6].

Contract Law – Supplemental Agreements – Economic Duress – Validity – Contractor compelled to execute multiple supplemental agreements for extension of time and extra works on threat of withholding payments – Trial Court finding that agreements were executed under coercion and not voluntarily – Held: Supplemental agreements vitiated by economic duress and unenforceable [Paras 7–8].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal – Duty of Appellate Court – Trial Court granted decree for multiple monetary claims without proper discussion of evidence – Held: Appellate Court entitled to reappreciate evidence and independently assess each head of claim on merits [Paras 9–10].

Works Contract – Extra Items of Work – Proof and Entitlement – Claim for jungle clearance for second time necessitated due to delay attributable to defendants – Measurement book supported execution – Held: Contractor entitled to payment for second jungle clearance [Paras 11–12].

Works Contract – Approach Road – Excluded Item – Tender conditions expressly excluded liability of department for providing access road – No direction proved for execution as extra item – Held: Contractor not entitled to reimbursement for formation of approach road [Para 13].

Works Contract – Felling and Conveyance of Trees – Rate Determination – Extra item of work – Survey of Forest Department rates showed higher applicable rate – Contractor paid at lower rate – Held: Contractor entitled to differential amount based on prevailing departmental rate [Para 14].

Works Contract – Cutting and Stacking of Timber – Lack of Evidence on Rate – Claim based on bald assertion without supporting material – Held: Claim rightly disallowed [Para 15].

Works Contract – Re-conveyance of Timber – Necessitated by Employer’s Directions – Evidence showed logs required to be shifted from river bed – Rate not specifically fixed – Court adopted reasonable rate – Held: Contractor entitled to proportionate payment [Para 16].

Works Contract – Excavation of Soil / Narikkal – Nature of Soil – Evidence insufficient to prove hard narikkal throughout claimed depth – However, probability of hard soil beyond 30 cm accepted – Held: Contractor entitled to differential rate applicable to hard soil, not hard narikkal [Paras 17–18].

Works Contract – Excess Quantity Claims – Measurement Book Prevails – Claim for additional excavation beyond recorded measurements not substantiated – Held: Claim disallowed where contradicted by measurement records [Para 19].

Works Contract – Slipped Earth – Quantity Dispute – Contractor’s contemporaneous correspondence unrefuted – Held: Total quantity accepted at 10,000 m³, but payable only at admitted rate – Contractor entitled to payment for balance quantity at accepted rate [Paras 20–21].

Works Contract – Blasting of Rock – Extra Item – Commissioner’s report relied upon – Quantity and rate proved – Held: Contractor entitled to amount based on expert assessment [Para 22].

Tender Conditions – Tender Deduction – Applicability to Extra Items – Tender quoted 17.6% below estimated rate – Contract clauses provided application of tender deduction to extra and additional items where rates derivable from schedule – Held: Tender deduction applicable to all allowed claims – Net amount recalculated accordingly [Paras 24–25].

Interest – Rate of Interest – Commercial Transactions – Claim for 18.5% interest declined – Held: Interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter appropriate [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court set aside – Plaintiff held entitled to recover Rs.2,84,110/- after applying tender deduction, with interest @ 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and @ 6% per annum thereafter till realisation, payable by first defendant [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Contempt – Forgery and Impersonation – Fabricated Court Filings – Conviction – Accused filed a statement of objections purportedly on behalf of Union of India by forging the signature and affidavit of the Central Government Standing Counsel – Counsel categorically denied preparing or filing the objections and disowned the affidavit – Held: Filing forged pleadings and impersonating counsel amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and constitutes criminal contempt [Paras 1–2, 11–14].

Contempt of Courts Act – Section 2(c) – Interference with Administration of Justice – Accused personally served forged statement of objections on opposite counsel and filed the same before the Court – Evidence of Assistant Registrar, Oath Commissioner and Advocate witnesses corroborated fabrication – Held: Conduct squarely falls within definition of criminal contempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Suo Motu Contempt – Procedure – Framing of Charges – Charges framed after detailed consideration by coordinate Bench – Accused given full opportunity to contest proceedings and lead evidence – Principles of natural justice complied with [Paras 2–4, 6].

Evidence – Oath Commissioner and Witness Testimony – Signature Mismatch – Oath Commissioner testified that signatures in oath register did not tally with genuine signature of the Central Government Counsel – Advocate witness identified accused as person who attempted service of forged objections – Held: Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 12–14].

Defence of Accused – Plea of Assistance to Counsel – Rejected – Accused claimed he merely assisted counsel in filing objections – No documentary or electronic evidence supporting authorisation – Counsel entered appearance only later and expressly denied preparation or filing – Defence found false and untenable [Paras 10–13].

Sentencing – Criminal Contempt – Lack of Remorse – Accused showed no regret and persisted in allegations against Judges and counsel – Gravity of offence and impact on judicial process considered – Held: Custodial sentence warranted [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Accused convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- – Accused directed to be taken into custody forthwith – Conviction warrant ordered to be issued – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Suit for Recovery - Insurance – Bankers Indemnity Policy – Loss Due to Employee Misconduct – Claim Denied for Failure to Prove Actual Loss and Violation of Policy Terms – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff bank filed suit seeking indemnity under BIPs for losses caused by alleged embezzlement and misappropriation by bank employee between 2003–2008 – Defendant insurer repudiated claims citing breach of "excess clause", failure to report within retroactive period, and non-maintenance of “dual control” – Court held plaintiff failed to prove actual losses during insured period and failed to substantiate audit findings with primary evidence – Mere production of audit summary insufficient to establish loss – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to claim under policy [Paras 28–48].

Contract of Insurance – Burden of Proof – Terms Must Be Proven – Failure to Substantiate Claims with Evidence – Plaintiff’s Reliance on Audit Report Not Enough – Court found no conclusive proof that alleged acts of embezzlement fell within policy coverage – Special audit report relied upon by plaintiff was not supported by underlying documents or primary evidence – Held: Loss not established in accordance with law, claim fails [Paras 46–47].

Insurance Law – Retroactive Period of Cover – Loss Not Discovered Within Permissible Time – Claim Rightly Rejected – Claim for loss under 2003–2004 policy filed after expiry of six-month retroactive discovery period – Court upheld insurer’s repudiation as per policy clause barring claims discovered beyond permissible timeline [Paras 39–41].

Insurance – Excess Clause – Small Claims Below Threshold Not Recoverable – Defendant insurer rightly denied multiple claims on grounds that individual losses were below ₹50,000 threshold under “excess clause” – Such clause held valid and enforceable [Paras 35–37].

Insurance Policy – Alleged Dual Control Breach – No Proven Applicability – Defendant Failed to Prove Clause Formed Part of Contract – Defendant’s claim that loss not indemnifiable due to lack of dual control dismissed – Court held dual control clause not proved to be part of agreed terms – Even if applicable, alleged acts of employee did not fall within scope of clause [Paras 42–44].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to indemnity under the Bankers Indemnity Policies – No order as to costs [Paras 48, 54–55].

Trademark Law - Infringement - Passing Off - Well-Known Mark - Section 159(5) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Interim Injunction - The use of a deceptively similar mark, even for different services, by a defendant with knowledge of the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark, constitutes infringement and passing off, warranting an interim injunction- The "saving" provision of Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not protect such use if the plaintiff's mark was registered after the 1999 Act and the defendant's adoption is dishonest.

Trademark Infringement - Passing Off - Well-Known Mark - Interim Injunction - The plaintiff, Federal Express Corporation, sought an interim injunction against the defendants, Fedex Securities Private Ltd. & Ors., for using the mark "FEDEX" in their corporate names and domain names, alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its well-known trademark- The defendants argued protection under Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, claiming prior use for financial services before the 1999 Act and distinctiveness from the plaintiff's courier services- Held: The plaintiff established a strong prima facie case- The mark "FEDEX" is a well-known registered trademark- The defendants' adoption of "FEDEX" was dishonest and an afterthought, as their explanation for its origin was implausible and inconsistent- The addition of "Securities" does not negate deceptive similarity- Section 159(5) does not apply as the plaintiff's Class 36 registration was post-1999 Act, and the defendants' use constitutes a "new use" amounting to infringement- The continuous use of a deceptively similar trading name, even for different services, amounts to infringement under the 1958 Act and passing off- Delay or acquiescence cannot be pleaded by dishonest adopters- Balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, and irreparable loss would occur if an injunction is not granted- Interim injunction granted- Paras [1-87]

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 159(5) - Applicability - "Continued Use" - Held: Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is a savings clause that protects the "continued use" of a particular registered trademark that was not an infringement under the 1958 Act- However, this provision does not apply to new uses or where the plaintiff's mark was registered after the commencement of the 1999 Act, especially when the defendant's adoption is dishonest and the use falls under new categories of infringement introduced by the 1999 Act (e.g., dilution, use on business papers)- Paras [69, 71, 72]

Trademark Law - Dishonest Adoption - Equitable Pleas - Delay and Acquiescence - Held: A defendant who dishonestly adopts a trademark with full knowledge of the plaintiff's reputation cannot raise equitable pleas such as delay or acquiescence to deny injunctive relief- The plaintiff's prompt objection to the impugned use further negates any claim of acquiescence- Paras [34, 35, 84]

Trademark Law - Deceptive Similarity - Corporate Name - Held: The use of a phonetically identical word like "FEDEX" as part of a corporate name, even with an additional descriptive word like "Securities," is likely to cause deception and confusion, suggesting a sister concern or agency relationship with the well-known trademark holder- The distinctiveness of the well-known mark is paramount- Paras [74, 80, 83]

Decision: Interim Application allowed- Temporary injunction granted restraining defendants from using "FEDEX" or any deceptively similar mark/name- Operation of judgment stayed for six weeks to allow appellate remedy- Paras [87, 88, 91].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC – State challenged acquittal of respondent in a road accident case resulting in death of one person and simple injuries to another – Trial Court acquitted respondent by granting benefit of doubt – Held: Appellate Court must be slow to interfere unless findings are perverse – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – No ground made out for interference [Paras 1, 9, 14–15].

Rash or Negligent Act – Ingredients of Section 304-A IPC – Mere accident or hitting from behind not sufficient – Prosecution must prove that act was rash or negligent and was proximate cause of death – Presumption of negligence cannot automatically be drawn against the driver [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Injured Witness – PW-1 failed to depose that vehicle was driven rashly or negligently – No statement regarding high speed, exact speed, lane of driving, or manner of driving – Identification of accused alone insufficient to establish culpable rashness or negligence [Paras 10–11].

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Limited Application – Presumption of negligence arises only where nature of accident and surrounding circumstances unequivocally indicate negligence – Not applicable merely because a vehicle hit another from behind [Paras 6–7].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Place of Recording Statement – PW-1 stated his statement was recorded at police station, whereas IO claimed it was recorded at the spot – Serious doubt created regarding reliability of prosecution version [Para 12].

Investigation – Deficiencies – No photographs of spot – No evidence of skid marks or dragging marks – Site plan did not show dragging of motorcycle nor bore signature of eyewitness – Exact point of impact not established – Lapses weaken prosecution case [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Scrutiny – Plausible View – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and well-reasoned – Where two views are possible, appellate court should not substitute its own view merely because it prefers another – Acquittal rightly sustained [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC upheld – Personal bond cancelled and surety discharged.