Service Law - Departmental Proceedings – Scope of Punishment under Section 11 CRPF Act – Dismissal Set Aside – Respondent constable was dismissed from service after being found under influence of alcohol and negligently damaging a cycle while on duty – Disciplinary action taken under Section 11 of the CRPF Act meant for minor punishments – Held: Dismissal being a major penalty was disproportionate where the incident caused no injury or major damage and evidence was inconclusive regarding intoxication during duty – Principles of proportionality and appropriate categorisation of offence under CRPF Act discussed – Dismissal order rightly set aside [Paras 2-5, 13-17].

Proportionality of Punishment – Judicial Review – Award of Minor Punishment Permissible under Section 11 – Inquiry report failed to conclusively establish intoxication while on duty; evidence of co-passenger exonerated respondent – Medical opinion based solely on clinical observation, not backed by blood test – Reliance placed on precedents like Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Giriraj Sharma v. Union of India to hold that extreme penalty was unwarranted – Held: Interference justified where penalty shocks the conscience and violates proportionality [Paras 10-12, 18-23].

Delay and Laches – Appellants’ Inaction Noted – No Diligent Prosecution by Union of India – Appeal filed with delay, restored after 4 years of dismissal for non-prosecution – Court declined to remand due to protracted litigation of over 18 years – Held: Respondent not to be penalised for appellants’ procedural lapses – Relief moulded to avoid further litigation [Paras 25-27].

Relief – Reinstatement with Limited Back Wages – Considering respondent's age and pending time for superannuation, Court directed reinstatement with 25% back wages and all notional benefits, including pension – Dismissal not to affect computation of retiral dues – Held: Appropriate relief moulded in equity without remanding matter back to Disciplinary Authority [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law - Preventive Relief – Quashing of Notice - Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Political Vendetta Allegation – Petitions Dismissed - Petitioners sought protection from arrest and quashing of notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIRs involving NDPS and Prevention of Corruption Act alleging political harassment after dissociating from ruling party – Held: As petitioners are not named accused and only summoned as witnesses, no direction for prior notice before arrest can be issued – Search warrants and investigation held valid – Petitioners have liberty to seek anticipatory bail if nominated as accused [Paras 5, 6, 8-11].

Police Powers – Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Improper Use – No Blanket Relief - Reliance on Calcutta High Court judgment in Sutapa Adhikari was held misplaced – Supreme Court ruling in Gopichand Ramchandani applied – High Court cannot impose precondition of notice before arrest as it curtails police authority – Directions to issue prior notice before arrest set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Investigation Process – Search Warrants – Validity Upheld – Allegations of malice and political pressure were not supported by evidence – Searches were based on proper warrants issued before petitioner’s political shift – Petitioners failed to appear before SIT despite notice – Held: Investigation proceeded lawfully, and petitioners’ apprehension of arrest without being accused was baseless [Paras 4, 5.1, 7].

Decision – Both Petitions Dismissed – Court refused to issue any preventive directions or quash the notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners directed to avail remedies under law if later nominated as accused [Paras 10-11].

Money Laundering – Bail on Medical Grounds – Section 45(1) PMLA – Interim Bail Granted – The petitioner, suffering from Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 12, a rare and incurable neurodegenerative disorder, sought bail on grounds of being “sick and infirm” – Medical Board confirmed severe physical and cognitive disabilities – Held: The petitioner falls within the exception under the proviso to Section 45(1) and is not required to meet the twin bail conditions – Interim bail granted till 15.11.2025 [Paras 2, 10-15, 17].

Custodial Treatment vs. Medical Needs – Jail Facilities Inadequate – Quality of Treatment Differential – The Court noted that jail authorities were unable to provide the level of continuous and prolonged care required for the petitioner’s condition – Citing Naresh Goyal’s case, it was held that treatment as a free citizen is qualitatively different from custodial care – Humanitarian grounds warranted release [Paras 11, 14].

Interpretation of PMLA – Proviso to Section 45(1) – Scope and Applicability – The Court held that the exemption under the proviso to Section 45(1) extends only to serious illnesses which cannot be adequately treated in custody – Once the exemption is applicable, the triple test under Section 45(2) or CrPC does not need to be satisfied – Authorities cited by ED distinguished on facts [Paras 8-13].

Decision – Interim Bail Granted on Medical Grounds – Petition Allowed – The Court found the petitioner’s condition to fall within the statutory exception for bail under the PMLA – Held: Petitioner to be released on interim bail upon furnishing bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties (one local), subject to strict conditions including cooperation with trial court, non-tampering with evidence, and restricted residence – Interim bail to continue till 15th November, 2025 [Paras 15-17].

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].

Delay Condonation – Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Liberal Approach Not Absolute – Application for condonation of 331-day delay in filing revision against acquittal under Section 326 IPC dismissed – Held: Petitioner failed to provide cogent, bona fide or satisfactory explanation for the delay – General claims of poverty and difficulty arranging funds unsupported by evidence – Mere assertion of hardship does not justify condonation without reasonable explanation [Paras 2, 6-7.1].

Limitation Law – Explanation Must Be Satisfactory – No Day-to-Day Detail Needed but Reason Must Be Credible – Reiterated: While liberal approach is encouraged to advance justice, discretion must be exercised judiciously – Held: The delay appeared deliberate to prolong litigation without bona fide justification – No continuous interest shown by petitioner in pursuing legal remedy – Petition deserved to fail on this ground alone [Paras 4-5, 7].

Decision – Delay Not Condoned – Revision Petition Dismissed – Court held that explanation furnished by petitioner was vague, unsubstantiated, and failed to meet threshold of ‘sufficient cause’ – Consequently, application for condonation dismissed and revision petition challenging acquittal under Section 326 IPC rejected on grounds of limitation [Paras 7.1-8].

Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034 – Petition Allowed - Developer sought implementation of approved SRA scheme including D.P. Road occupants as PAPs, but faced obstruction despite fulfilling pre-conditions including deposit of rent and eligibility certification – Held: MCGM’s NOC was deemed granted after 60 days under Regulation 2.8 – refusal to issue CC was unjustified [Paras 2-22, 27].

Administrative Interference – Political Influence in Executive Action – Directions Quashed - Complaint by local MLA opposing LOI was found to be a proxy attempt by a rival developer – Minister's intervention through a hearing notice was beyond jurisdiction and without legal basis – Held: Such executive interference without authority is illegal – notice dated 14.05.2025 and consequential actions quashed [Paras 6, 21-24, 28-30, 36(C)].

Consent and Compliance – Compliance with Circular No. 144 – Validated - Objections to lack of 51% consent and area variance rejected – Held: Developer had over 54% consent even including PAPs – SRA had approved fresh proposal due to inability to independently develop D.P. Road – LOI and IOA validly reinstated as per earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions [Paras 14-18].

Execution of Eviction – Failure by Authorities to Act – Directions Issued - Despite confirmed eviction orders upheld by AGRC, Respondent Authorities failed to execute evictions, citing political pressure – Held: Authorities directed to execute eviction and take all steps for time-bound implementation of the scheme [Paras 20, 23, 36(D)].

Undertakings to Supreme Court – Binding Nature – Developer's Duty - The Petitioner had given an undertaking before the Supreme Court to rehabilitate 164 original and 47 PAP slum dwellers – Held: That undertaking must be honoured in full – directions issued for finalisation of Annexure-II including certified PAPs [Paras 9, 24, 36(E)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed - Hearing notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by Minister quashed – Respondents directed to finalise Annexure-II, issue Commencement Certificate and ensure implementation of SRA Scheme within stipulated time in accordance with directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and prior judicial orders – Costs imposed on Respondent No. 9 for frivolous litigation [Paras 36(A)-(F)].

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].

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].

Adoption – Consent of Biological Father – Inference Permissible – Petitioners, mother and stepfather, applied for adoption – State Authority insisted on father’s written consent though he had relinquished custody/visitation rights in matrimonial settlement – Biological father remained silent before Court – Held: silence and prior relinquishment justify inference of consent; insistence on express consent would defeat child’s welfare – Court directed authorities to complete adoption treating order as proof of consent [Paras 1-5].

Child Welfare – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of child to prevail over technical objections – Refusal or indecision of biological parent cannot deprive child of belonging fully to adoptive family – Court emphasized need for certainty and security in child’s status [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Writ petition disposed – Inference of consent drawn against biological father; petitioners permitted to upload this order as proof of consent – Authorities directed to complete adoption process accordingly [Para 5].