Administrative Law – Cancellation of Tender – Delay in Communication of Government Approval – Arbitrary Action by State Instrumentality – Decision Set Aside – CIDCO cancelled the tender process for allotment of hospital plot despite approval being granted by the Chief Minister for the revised eligibility criteria which included partnership firms like the Petitioner – Court held that CIDCO’s inaction in not following up on approval and subsequent cancellation was arbitrary and perverse – CIDCO’s justification of non-receipt of communication was not accepted – Held: Cancellation order dated 4 October 2024 is unsustainable and set aside [Paras 16–18, 24–25].

Public Auctions – Legitimate Expectation – Highest Bidder Denied Allotment Due to Fault of Authority – Relief Granted – Petitioner, though highest bidder offering price above revised base value, was denied allotment – Court held Petitioner had legitimate expectation as CIDCO had allowed participation of partnership firms and later relied on internal delay to cancel tender – Held: Petitioner cannot be penalised for CIDCO’s failure to act diligently – Directed issuance of allotment letter to Petitioner [Paras 14–17, 25].

Reasoned Orders – Requirement Under Law – Vague Administrative Grounds Not Sufficient – Decision Must Record Justifiable Reasons – CIDCO’s cancellation order failed to disclose valid reasons – Vague reference to “administrative grounds” held insufficient – Reliance placed on SC decisions emphasizing need for reasoned administrative orders – Mere anticipation of higher price or reference to other plots not a valid ground in facts of case [Paras 16, 21].

Public Interest – Healthcare Infrastructure – Plots Earmarked for Hospitals – Delay in Allotment Impacts Public Services – Court noted that the plot in question was earmarked for hospital use in Navi Mumbai and delay in allotment deprived local residents of essential healthcare – Speculative commercial motives of CIDCO held contrary to public interest in this context – Directed prompt finalization in favour of Petitioner [Paras 23–24].

Final Relief – Writ Allowed – Cancellation Set Aside – CIDCO Directed to Issue Allotment Letter – Writ Petition allowed – CIDCO’s decision dated 4 October 2024 quashed – CIDCO directed to allot Plot No.25 to the Petitioner as per procedure [Para 25].

Partition Suit – Successive Litigation – Abuse of Process – Plaintiff in O.S. No.36 of 2021 was 16th defendant in earlier partition suit O.S. No.1407 of 2015 – Earlier suit rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on finding that property belonged to deceased husband as sole heir – No appeal or challenge to said rejection – Held: Subsequent suit on same cause of action amounts to abuse of process and is barred – Plaintiff cannot re-agitate same claim without setting aside earlier decree – Suit struck off under Article 227 of Constitution [Paras 3, 4, 8, 16, 22, 23].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 14 and 15 – Stridhan Property – Devolution – Property purchased by Kamalammal from her stridhan funds became her absolute property under Section 14 – Upon intestate death, devolves under Section 15(1)(a) and not under Section 15(2)(a) – Held: Surviving husband rightly inherited full interest – Plaintiff's claim as heir of father not maintainable – Will by husband valid – No share accrues to plaintiff [Paras 17, 19, 20, 22].

Re-litigation – Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Striking off of Plaint – When fresh suit is based on same cause and factual matrix as earlier suit which has attained finality – Filing of new suit without curing defects amounts to disguised re-litigation – Held: Even if alternate remedy exists, High Court can intervene to prevent misuse of court process – Suit struck off in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction [Paras 15, 21, 23].

Order VII Rule 13 CPC – Scope – Permits fresh suit after rejection under Rule 11 only if defects are cured – Held: In present case, fundamental ground of rejection remained unchanged – Mere refiling without curing legal bar does not revive cause – No protection under Rule 13 available [Paras 5, 15].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Suit in O.S. No.36 of 2021 struck off as not maintainable – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs [Para 24].

Civil Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Counterclaim Proceeded – Appeal by Plaintiff Abandoned - Plaintiff failed to appear, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution – However, defendant’s counterclaim for ₹1.68 crores was entertained as it was filed with appropriate stamp duty and supported by evidence – Held: Defendant permitted to proceed with counterclaim despite dismissal of original suit [Paras 2-4].

Counterclaim – Promissory Note and Deed of Undertaking – Execution Admitted – Counterclaim Decreed - Defendant relied on Ex.D1 (promissory note for ₹1.68 crores) and Ex.D2 (deed of undertaking) both executed by the plaintiff – Cheques issued by plaintiff were dishonoured and police complaint resulted in registration of FIR – Plaintiff did not appear to refute documents – Held: Counterclaim proved through oral and documentary evidence; decree granted as prayed for [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Plaintiff Misused Blank Signed Promissory Notes – FIR Registered – Supporting Evidence Marked - Defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had collected funds in a fraudulent scheme involving auctioned goods purportedly through the Central Excise Department – Supporting cheques and their dishonour established through Exs.D3 to D10 – Criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC pending – Held: Sufficient material to support counterclaim of misuse and liability [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Law of Indemnity – Affirmation of Ownership and Inducement – Defendant Entitled to Recover Losses - Citing Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bingham 66, court reiterated that a person misrepresenting authority or ownership and inducing another into transactions is liable to compensate – Held: Defendant entitled to recover loss from plaintiff under indemnity principles [Para 8].

Decision – Counterclaim Decreed – ₹1.68 Crores with Costs – Suit Dismissed – Judgment for Defendant - Plaintiff’s suit dismissed without trial – Defendant’s counterclaim allowed based on unrefuted evidence – Judgment and decree granted for ₹1.68 crores with costs [Para 9].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Consolidation Proceedings – Ownership and Right of Way – Decree Partly Set Aside – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with reconstruction of boundary wall over a passage he claimed was privately carved out during consolidation proceedings – Defendants contended it was a public rasta and necessary for access to their plots – Courts below wrongly placed burden on defendants to prove it was a public way – Held: As per Section 2(bb) and 23A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, lands reserved during consolidation for roads/pathways vest in Panchayat unless proven otherwise – Plaintiff failed to produce any record showing exclusive private right – Therefore, injunction to block the passage was erroneous – However, injunction against interference with plaintiff’s peaceful possession of remaining land upheld [Paras 8-13].

Burden of Proof – Exclusive Right Over Passage – Requirement of Cogent Evidence – Plaintiff Failed to Discharge Onus – When plaintiff claims exclusive right over land carved out during consolidation, burden lies upon him to prove the same – Mere averment without documentary proof from consolidation proceedings insufficient – Courts erred in shifting burden on defendant to prove public character of passage [Paras 11-12].

Decree Modified – Partial Relief Granted – Injunction Against Interference with Possession Maintained – Relief Regarding Passage Rejected – Appeal allowed partly – Decree modified to the extent that defendants are restrained only from interfering with plaintiff’s possession of remaining suit land, not the passage which was not proved to be plaintiff’s exclusive property [Para 13].

Criminal Contempt – Attack on Advocate Commissioners – Interference with Administration of Justice – Held Guilty – Court-appointed Advocate Commissioners were assaulted by a mob while executing commission in CS(OS) 4024/2014 concerning counterfeit Samsung products – Several Advocates sustained grievous injuries and were forced to abandon commission – Held: Obstruction of Court-appointed Commissioners amounts to direct interference with administration of justice – Such acts undermine judicial authority and cannot be condoned [Paras 1-29, 75-82].

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Standard of Proof – Wilfulness Essential – Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature – Disobedience must be wilful, intentional and calculated – Mere bystanders or uninformed persons without knowledge of Court orders cannot be punished for criminal contempt though they may face IPC trial – Only persons shown to have incited or participated with knowledge of Court orders were convicted [Paras 69-74, 76-78].

Plea of Alibi – Not Accepted – Respondents 1, 4 and 13 claimed absence during the incident – Pleas rejected – Affidavits and circumstances showed they had knowledge of Court orders and incited mob violence to thwart commission – Physical absence did not absolve responsibility [Para 80].

Decision – Respondents 1 (Rajullah Khan), 2 (Asraf Ali), 4 (Nasrul Haque), 10 (Saheb Alam), 11 (Rashid Iqbal), 13 (Rumaish Akhtar), 17 (Niyaz Ahmed), 18 (Md. Asif), 21 (Anwar Hossain), 22 (Lalchand Khan), 24 (Nishar Ali) and 27 (Ajmatullah Khan) held guilty of criminal contempt – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day and fine of Rs. 2,000 each – Remaining respondents discharged – Observations confined to contempt proceedings, independent of pending IPC trials [Paras 82-88].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Protection of Life and Liberty – Petitioner, a practicing advocate, sought police protection alleging threats from his former clients (respondents No.5 and 6) over refund of professional fees – Court directed SSP Mohali and SSP Chandigarh to examine representations dated 02.06.2025 and 23.07.2025 and to take necessary action to ensure protection of petitioner’s life and liberty [Paras 1–3].

Advocate–Client Relationship – Professional Misconduct Allegations – Respondents No.5 and 6, former clients of the petitioner, alleged that petitioner had demanded and accepted ₹5.45 lakh purportedly for payment to a Government Pleader and Judicial Officer for obtaining a favourable court order – Court noted gravity of allegation and absence of specific names but observed that such allegations, if true, affect integrity of judicial institution [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Misconduct – Integrity of Judicial System – Court took judicial notice of a recent FIR by CBI ACB Chandigarh against another advocate for similar allegations of bribery in the name of a Judicial Officer – Observed that issues involved go beyond personal threats and touch upon integrity of the Bench and Bar as twin pillars of the justice system [Paras 14–15].

Investigation – Referral to CBI – Considering seriousness, sensitivity, and need for impartial inquiry, Court directed that entire matter, including threats and allegations of corruption, be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for detailed investigation – CBI directed to take cognizance immediately and submit report within stipulated time – All concerned authorities to cooperate [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Matter referred to CBI for comprehensive investigation into threats and alleged professional misconduct of the petitioner [Para 18].

Trade Marks – Section 11(1) and Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act - Likelihood of Confusion – KIND Family of Marks – Refusal Order Set Aside – Appellant’s application for “PETKIND” was rejected under Section 11(1) citing conflict with “PETKIND PHARMA” by Wellford Pharma – Held: Appellant has longstanding, extensive use of the KIND suffix in over 210 registered Class 5 marks and significant market goodwill – The cited mark was only a proposed use with no evidence of prior user – No real likelihood of confusion shown – Refusal order unsustainable [Paras 5, 22-27].

Well-Known Mark – Special Protection – KIND Recognized as Well-Known – The Court acknowledged prior judicial findings granting high protection to the “KIND” family, including rulings in Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharma and others – Held: “KIND” suffix has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning due to continuous, extensive use – Entitled to elevated protection against conflicting marks [Paras 9, 14, 25].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 11(1) – Mere Similarity in Same Class Not Sufficient – The Court held that registration can only be denied under Section 11(1)(a)/(b) if likelihood of confusion exists – Held: Same Class similarity alone not determinative; consumer perception, nature of goods, and market use must be assessed – No active use of cited mark proved – Refusal invalid [Paras 23-24, 26].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Refusal Order Set Aside – Court directed advertisement of “PETKIND” mark within two months – Clarified that if opposition proceedings arise, they must be adjudicated independently on merits, uninfluenced by this decision – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 28-31].

Rent—Order 15-A CPC—Scope of deposit obligation—Fixation of rent disputed—Second eventuality under O.15-A attracted—Upon judicial fixation, tenant must deposit arrears computed on the fixed rent up to the date of fixation and continue to deposit future rent as it falls due—Trial Court’s provisional fixation at ₹20,000 p.m. with arrears ₹21,10,000 from 16-04-2016 to 31-01-2025 sustained [Paras 10, 13-15].

Procedure—Application titled under S.151 CPC—Substance over form—Application treated as under O.15-A CPC having regard to pleadings, arguments, and treatment by Trial Court and High Court—Label of provision not determinative [Paras 8-9,12-13].

Eviction suit—Interim monetary directions—Prior remand—Earlier CRP (No. 447/2024) set aside ₹30,000 p.m. and directed enquiry to fix reasonable rent; Trial Court thereafter fixed ₹20,000 p.m. provisionally—No interference warranted in revision [Paras 2-3, 15].

Practice & Procedure—Striking off defence—Observation by Trial Court—Though beyond prayer, merely reiterative of O.15-A consequence; any actual striking off requires a separate order—No jurisdictional error [Para 7].

Decision—Civil Revision Petition dismissed—No order as to costs—Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 16].

Matrimonial Law – Civil Revision - Interim Maintenance – Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Maintenance to Wife Set Aside – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay ₹30,000/- per month each to his wife and son – While not disputing maintenance to the son, the petitioner contended that the wife was financially self-sufficient with substantial dividend income and valuable immovable assets – Held: The respondent-wife received significant income through dividends and owned immovable property – Interim maintenance to the wife not justified – Order of Family Court awarding maintenance to wife set aside; maintenance to son upheld [Paras 2, 11-16, 19-20].

Maintenance – Scope and Object of Section 24 HMA – Determination of "Sufficient Income" – Section 24 intended to ensure support during proceedings, not to enrich financially capable spouse – Held: Maintenance under Section 24 is for sustenance at the standard enjoyed in matrimonial home – Where wife has independent substantial income and assets, claim for interim maintenance not sustainable [Paras 13-16, 19].

Suppression of Income – Dividend and Asset Ownership – Conduct of Wife – Dividends from Scan World Pvt. Ltd. and re-transfer of property during proceedings considered material – Held: Respondent’s act of restraining dividend payout through NCLT and subsequent explanations for property transfer not bona fide – Court found deliberate suppression of income to justify maintenance claim – Family Court erred in overlooking these facts [Paras 5-8, 15].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Order awarding maintenance to wife set aside – Maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month to son and NEET coaching fee of ₹2.77 lakhs already paid by petitioner not challenged – Held: Family Court order modified accordingly; no costs awarded [Paras 12, 20].