Assisted Reproductive Technology – Eligibility Criteria – Age Restriction – Respondent No.1 (wife) sought IVF treatment using donor sperm despite her husband (Respondent No.2) being aged 55 years – ART clinic denied service citing ineligibility of the couple as a whole under Section 21(g) of the ART Act – Held: The age restriction under Section 21(g)(ii) applies only where the male’s gamete is used – Where donor sperm is used, only the woman’s age is relevant – Married woman cannot be denied ART access on the sole ground of husband’s age if she seeks to use donor sperm with his consent [Paras 5, 20, 30]

Equality and Non-Discrimination – Married vs. Single Women – ART Act interpreted to avoid unconstitutional classification – Denial of ART services to married woman using donor sperm, while allowing access to single woman of same age, held discriminatory – Such a reading would place married women at unfair disadvantage – Held: Law must be interpreted harmoniously to uphold equal rights irrespective of marital status [Paras 5, 30]

Statutory Interpretation – Legislative Intent – Composite age restriction not prescribed in ART Act – Court refused to read additional conditions into clear statutory language – Held: When ART Act separately defines “woman” and “commissioning couple” and does not impose joint age criteria, it cannot be inferred that both spouses must individually satisfy age limits in all circumstances [Paras 21–23, 29–30]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference – Court found no legal error or perversity in Single Judge’s interpretation – Appellate Court upheld reasoning that statute must not be interpreted to produce inequitable or absurd results – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 31]

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Married woman held entitled to undergo ART procedure using donor sperm if within age limit under Section 21(g)(i) – No illegality found in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Eyewitness Account – Conviction Confirmed – Victim shot dead on a boat by appellant Dhanu Ghosh using a pipe gun – Other appellants instigated and facilitated the act – PW1 and PW4, brothers of the deceased, were eyewitnesses and gave consistent accounts of the incident – Post-mortem (PW7) confirmed gunshot injury from close range – Presence of multiple eyewitnesses nullifies argument of false implication – Common intention clearly established through coordinated acts and presence [Paras 10–12, 25–28, 32–35]

Evidence – Non-Recovery of Weapon – No Fatality to Prosecution – Pipe gun used in offence not recovered – Bullet also not recovered from the body – Held: Non-recovery of weapon not fatal where eyewitness testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence – Medical opinion clearly supports prosecution version of a close-range gunshot causing death [Paras 5–6, 23, 33, 36]

Criminal Trial – Eyewitness Credibility – Corroboration with Medical Evidence – Consistent Testimony – PW1 and PW4 identified appellants and described the incident with precision – PW2 (boatman) corroborated circumstances though not an eyewitness – PW3 arrived shortly after the incident and saw accused fleeing – Medical evidence (PW7) consistent with oral evidence – Cross-examination of witnesses failed to discredit them – Held: Trial Court rightly relied on ocular and medical evidence to convict [Paras 13–20, 27–31]

Criminal Law – Motive – Presence of Eyewitnesses – Motive Becomes Redundant – Defence raised plea of prior enmity and false implication – Court held that where there are trustworthy eyewitnesses, proof of motive is unnecessary – Enmity could also support motive for murder – Plea of false implication rejected [Paras 34–35]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Improper Framing of Questions – No Prejudice Shown – Appellants argued that questions under Section 313 CrPC were complex – Court found no material prejudice – No denial of fair opportunity established – Conviction not vitiated on this ground [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC affirmed – Period of detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – No interference warranted with Trial Court’s findings [Paras 37–40]

Education Law – Society Dispute – Rival Church Factions – Management of educational institutions disputed between Church of North India (CNI) and Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon (CIPBC) – Multiple writ petitions filed over two decades – High Court holds Registrar acted illegally in issuing directions despite status quo order – Rival claims regarding church succession not finally adjudicated – Held: Parties relegated to Civil Court to resolve foundational dispute; interim management directed [Paras 13, 20, 23–24, 27(III)]

Societies Registration Act – Registrar’s Powers – Registrar passed order directing joint operation of bank accounts by rival claimants despite subsisting court-ordered status quo – Held: Action illegal and beyond jurisdiction – Registrar cannot override High Court’s interim orders or decide disputed church succession – Impugned order set aside [Paras 13, 27(I)]

Church Governance – Merger of CIPBC with CNI – Conflicting claims regarding whether CNI is lawful successor of CIPBC – Court examines Supreme Court’s judgment in Vinod Kumar Malviya v. Maganlal Gameti, (2013) 15 SCC 394 and various High Court judgments – Finds that issue of merger remains open and disputed – Held: Dispute cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and requires civil trial [Paras 14, 20, 22–23]

Interim Measures – Court Directions – Court observes continued mismanagement and unresolved disputes over a decade – Appoints Justice Umesh Kumar (Retd.) as Court Observer – Orders joint operation of bank accounts by Principals of institutions along with District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj – Directs quarterly audits by independent Chartered Accountant – Observer empowered to seek further directions from Court [Paras 24–27(VI)]

Procedural Law – Substitution Applications – Multiple rival claimants filed applications to substitute deceased petitioner – Court finds no legal basis to entertain substitution where elections were invalid or conducted in violation of status quo – All substitution applications rejected – Petition left uncontested [Paras 6–8]

Judicial Discipline – Writ Jurisdiction Limitations – Dispute involves complex questions of fact regarding church succession and validity of internal elections – Held: Properly triable before civil court; prolonged writ proceedings have not yielded resolution – Delay harming institutional governance and prompting criminal allegations [Paras 22–24]

Principal’s Tenure – Administrative Observation – Though no retirement age is prescribed, Court notes concerns over prolonged tenure and allegations – Principal advised to disclose assets voluntarily to dispel doubts about mismanagement [Para 25–26]

Decision: All connected writ petitions disposed of – Order of Registrar dated 03.08.2022 set aside – Parties relegated to competent civil court to adjudicate core dispute of church succession and society control – Interim arrangement directed: bank accounts to be operated jointly by respective Principals, District Magistrate, and Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj – Justice Umesh Kumar (Retd.) appointed as Court Observer to oversee management, verify records, ensure audits and report to Court as needed – Registrar (Compliance) directed to take necessary steps [Paras 27–29]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction Barred by Special Statute – Suit involving investor’s grievance against registered stockbroker for alleged non-delivery of shares and wrongful debit – Held: SEBI Act, 1992 provides a complete adjudicatory mechanism, including appointment of adjudicating officer under Section 15-I – Civil Court jurisdiction expressly barred under Section 15-Y – Plaintiff’s remedy lies under the special statute – Trial court erred in dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Impugned order set aside and plaint rejected [Paras 2, 10–15, 19]

Securities Law – SEBI Act – Investor Grievance – Default by Stockbroker – Suit filed for mandatory injunction directing stockbroker to deliver specific shares and reverse debited amount – Held: Matters relating to stockbroker default fall squarely within scope of Sections 15-F and 15-C of SEBI Act – Adjudication must be done by SEBI-appointed officer, not civil court – Civil court lacks jurisdiction in view of statutory bar under Section 15-Y [Paras 14–15]

Specific Relief – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Not Maintainable Where Alternative Remedy Exists – Plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction instead of recovery – Held: When efficacious statutory and legal remedies are available under SEBI Act or by filing suit for recovery with ad valorem court fee, mandatory injunction cannot be granted – Suit hit by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act – Apparent attempt to evade court fee liability [Paras 16–17]

Res Judicata and Abuse of Process – Second Application under Order 7 Rule 11 – Earlier rejection by trial court set aside by High Court with direction to decide afresh – Trial court failed to appreciate binding nature of earlier order – Repetition of error renders impugned order unsustainable [Paras 4, 18]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.02.2017 set aside – Suit of the plaintiff/respondent rejected as barred by law – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Para 19–20]

Property Law – Mutation – Supreme Court Judgment Recognizing Ownership – Municipal Records to Reflect Non-Thika Status – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner purchased property via registered deed and obtained amalgamation order – Property mutated in its favour in 2008 – Thika Controller later declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenants – This was challenged and ultimately reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022, confirming that the premises was not Thika – Respondent Corporation’s reliance on Thika Controller’s order to alter mutation entry was held unlawful – Held: Municipal records must be corrected to show Petitioner as owner and remove Thika classification – Respondents’ civil claim for adverse possession is pending and will not affect current ownership mutation [Paras 1, 8–10, 27–37]

Municipal Law – Scope of Mutation – Title Dispute Not to Be Decided – Mutation Based on Lawful Ownership Recognized by Supreme Court – Corporation argued it cannot determine title – High Court held that where ownership is already determined by the Supreme Court, Corporation is bound to act accordingly – Pending civil litigation on adverse possession does not preclude mutation in favour of Petitioner as rightful owner – Corporation directed to act in compliance with Supreme Court judgment [Paras 18, 28, 32, 36]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Alternate Remedy Not a Bar Where Supreme Court Judgment Ignored – Despite availability of alternate statutory mechanism under KMC Taxation Rules, High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 as municipal authority failed to act on Supreme Court’s final judgment – Held: Inaction despite final adjudication of title and property classification justifies writ remedy [Paras 18, 21, 35]

Tenancy Law – Thika Tenancy – Claim Rejected by Supreme Court – Mutation Based on Thika Tenancy Set Aside – Property Declared Non-Thika – Thika Controller had declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenant – Supreme Court conclusively ruled that property is not Thika – Held: All entries treating property as Thika and mutation in favour of private respondents based on Thika status are illegal – Property to be recorded as non-Thika [Paras 6–7, 28–30]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent Corporation directed to:

(i) Record the property as a non-Thika premises

(ii) Restore mutation in the name of the Petitioner as lawful owner

(iii) Give effect to any civil court decree in favour of private respondents, if passed in future [Paras 36–37]

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Alternate Suitable Residence – Decree of eviction passed against tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant during pendency of suit acquired 2 BHK flat jointly with son – Held: Despite being joint ownership, tenant was financial contributor, helped in loan repayment, and suppressed fact during trial – Decree upheld as alternate suitable residence was indeed acquired [Paras 24–27]

Will and Testament – Bequest of Premises – Suit premises claimed to be not needed due to bequest of rooms in Kelkar Museum to tenant and wife under a Will – Will imposed strict conditions including prohibition on altering furniture and requirement to display rooms to public – Held: Rooms were not freely usable or private, hence not “suitable alternate residence” under Rent Act [Paras 22–23]

Tenancy Inheritance – Right to Sue – Legal heirs brought on record after tenant’s death – Landlord argued tenancy rights extinguished with eviction decree – Held: Right to sue survives for legal heirs already brought on record and paying mesne profits – But such entry does not confer tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c) of Bombay Rent Act in absence of evidence of co-residency at time of death [Paras 17–18]

CPC – Order XXII and Legal Representation – Legal heirs brought on record without objection – No automatic conferment of tenant status – Determination under Section 5(11)(c) requires evidence, cannot be assumed in writ proceedings [Paras 17–18]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act – No Eviction Ground – Petitioners argued decree not sustainable under new Act as Section 16 lacks alternate residence ground – Rejected – Decree based on cause of action and trial under Bombay Rent Act remains valid and enforceable [Para 19]

Writ Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings – Trial and appellate courts found acquisition of alternate suitable residence by tenant – High Court upheld findings as probable and based on evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 [Paras 21, 27–29]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Decree of eviction upheld – Petitioners directed to hand over vacant possession within six weeks – Respondent permitted to withdraw deposited compensation [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Arson – Conviction Upheld – Accused formed unlawful assembly and launched attack on the deceased in course of property dispute – House of deceased was set on fire and he was assaulted with lathis on vital body parts causing fatal cranio-cerebral injuries – Trial court convicted under Sections 148, 436 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 – High Court found evidence of eye-witnesses, many of them injured, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 1, 9, 13-14, 17-18]

Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Medical Corroboration – Six injured witnesses confirmed to have sustained blunt force trauma consistent with lathi assaults – Medical reports supported their presence at scene and nature of assault – Minor omissions and initial non-disclosures found not material – Credibility intact despite pendency of counter-case against them [Paras 11-14]

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem revealed depressed skull fracture, haemorrhage in brain stem and multiple antemortem injuries – Death opined to be due to cranio-cerebral trauma caused by hard and blunt weapon – Medical findings fully matched with witness account of assault – Held: Death was clearly homicidal [Para 9]

Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Applicability – Acts of setting fire, fatal assault on deceased and coordinated attack on rescuers established that unlawful assembly had common object – Specific roles attributed to each appellant – No requirement to prove individual overt act where offence committed in furtherance of common object – Vicarious liability under Section 149 attracted [Paras 13, 17]

Hostile Witnesses – Effect on Prosecution – Some prosecution witnesses turned hostile or did not support prosecution – Held: Core case established by consistent and credible testimony of injured and independent witnesses – Conviction can be sustained on basis of quality evidence despite some hostile witnesses [Para 16]

Motive – Land Dispute – Claim of accused that house belonged to them contradicted by prosecution evidence showing longstanding possession by deceased – Existence of land dispute supported motive – Presence of motive strengthens prosecution version but not essential in light of direct evidence [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants under Sections 148, 436 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC affirmed – Appeal abated against Appellant-Basudev Barik due to death – Remaining appellants directed to surrender within three weeks [Para 18]

Trademark Infringement – Interim Relief – Likelihood of Confusion – Modified Injunction – Appellant’s restaurant name "GULSHAN-E-KARIM" found to infringe respondent’s registered mark "KARIM" used since 1913 – Respondent held to have established prima facie case of infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act – Use of “KARIM” as dominant part of both marks considered likely to cause initial interest confusion among consumers – Commercial Court’s interim injunction upheld in principle – However, complete restraint modified on equity grounds as appellant’s use was innocent and confined to Moradabad – Appellant allowed to continue using the mark with mandatory disclaimer distancing itself from respondent’s restaurant group – Failure to comply within six weeks to result in revival of original injunction [Paras 7.1, 11.5–12.8, 13.1–13.4, 14.1–14.5, 15.1–15.6, 16.1–16.9, 17–18].

Similarity – Dominant Part Test – Anti-Dissection Rule – Publici Juris Argument Rejected – Court holds "KARIM" is the dominant and memorable part of both the appellant’s and respondent’s marks – Phonetic and visual similarity sufficient for infringement even without side-by-side comparison – Appellant’s argument that “KARIM” is generic or publici juris rejected in light of its own trademark application and Section 31(1) presumption of validity – Anti-dissection rule held applicable only to plaintiff’s mark, not to infringer’s mark – Doctrine of dominant part upheld in infringement analysis [Paras 12.1–12.8, 13.1–13.4, 14.1–14.5].

Equity – Innocent Infringer – Modification of Injunctive Relief – Court finds appellant’s use of "GULSHAN-E-KARIM" was innocent and not intended to ride on respondent’s goodwill – Mark found to be suggestively laudatory in nature and used only locally since 2016 – Respondent’s remedy to protect brand equity adequately served by requiring appellant to display disclaimer in English and Hindi, disassociating itself from the respondent’s restaurants – Complete prohibition on appellant’s mark held disproportionate and inequitable under Order XXXIX CPC [Paras 16.1–16.9].

Acquiescence – Delay Not Fatal – Inaction Alone Not Sufficient – Respondent found to have acted with diligence upon discovering appellant’s use of the mark in 2020 – Evidence did not support continuous commercial use by appellant since 1997 – No positive act of encouragement or waiver by respondent – Legal principle from Midas Hygiene and Power Control Appliances applied to hold that mere inaction is not acquiescence – Acquiescence cannot defeat injunction in case of proven infringement [Paras 15.1–15.6].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Commercial Court’s order modified to allow continued use of “GULSHAN-E-KARIM” with mandatory disclaimer – Appellant to comply within six weeks or face reinstatement of full injunction – No order as to costs [Paras 17–18

Arbitration – Jurisdiction Challenge – Section 16 A&C Act – Arbitrator appointed with party consent under Section 11 – Petitioner raised preliminary objection claiming dispute was non-arbitrable as it involved dissolution and asset distribution of a firm "at will" – Held: The existence of an arbitration clause and disputed dissolution status made arbitral jurisdiction tenable – Application rightly rejected by Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 6, 9–10]

Non-Arbitrable Subject – Winding Up of Partnership Firm – Petitioner argued that post-dissolution, dispute involved rights in rem, requiring court-supervised winding up – Held: In absence of a concluded dissolution or involvement of third-party claims, dispute over distribution of assets remains inter se between partners – It is an action in personam and thus arbitrable [Paras 5.2, 9.1]

Maintainability – Writ Petition Against Arbitral Order – Court held petition under Article 226/227 challenging rejection of jurisdictional plea is not maintainable except in exceptional rarity – Interference permitted only when order is perverse or passed in bad faith – Mere disagreement with arbitral ruling does not suffice [Paras 7.1, 8, 12–13]

Partnership Deed – Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – Clauses 12 and 13 considered – Clause 12 provided for arbitration of disputes relating to business or deed – Court found dispute within ambit of Clause 12 and not falling under exclusionary Clause 13, as the existence and dissolution of the firm were still contested [Paras 9–9.1]

Judicial Interference – Arbitration Framework – Strong reaffirmation of minimal interference principle under Section 5 A&C Act – Citing recent and binding SC precedents including Serosoft Solutions, Bhaven Construction, and SBI General Insurance – Court emphasized the legislative mandate of autonomy and efficiency in arbitral proceedings [Paras 5.4, 7.1, 8]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Held not maintainable under Articles 226/227 – No interference warranted with order of Arbitral Tribunal rejecting Section 16 application – All contentions on merits including jurisdictional objections left open for consideration under Section 34 A&C Act post award [Paras 13–14]