Intellectual Property Law – Patent Infringement – Olaparib Patent Dispute – The court considered the matter involving alleged infringement of Indian Patent IN 228720 (IN’720), owned by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, by Natco Pharma Limited through the manufacturing and sale of a generic version of Olaparib. [Para 1-7]

Infringement of Patent – held – substantiated – Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, as the registered proprietor of the suit patent IN’720, filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited for infringement. Natco's production and sale of Olaparib, covered under the patent, constituted infringement. [Para 7]

Credibility of Challenge to Patent Validity – considered – the court examined the defense put forth by Natco Pharma Limited, challenging the validity of the suit patent under various grounds including lack of inventive step and anticipation by prior publication. The analysis focused on whether Natco's challenges to the patent’s validity were credible. [Para 43-47, 58-62]

Decision – Grant of Interlocutory Injunction – The Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Natco Pharma Limited from manufacturing, selling, or dealing with Olaparib, pending the disposal of the suit, validating the enforceability of the suit patent IN’720 owned by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited. [Para 72]

Decision on Counterclaim – Dismissed – Natco's application seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain Kudos Pharmaceuticals from enforcing the suit patent was dismissed, following the establishment of the credibility of the suit patent and the infringement thereof. [Para 74-76]

Challenge Against Dismissal of Revision Petition - Petitioner challenges the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge dismissing the criminal revision petition against the trial court's order - Revision petition was against the trial court's dismissal of a complaint for defamation for lack of territorial jurisdiction [Para 1].

Complaint for Defamation Under IPC - Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC - Complainant claimed the respondent published defamatory posts on Facebook within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court [Paras 2-3].

Territorial Jurisdiction Issue - Trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction - No specific mention of the place of publication of alleged defamatory content or where its consequences were felt - Addresses of the respondent mentioned in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, outside the court's jurisdiction [Paras 5-6].

High Court's Observation and Decision - High Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions - Observed the complaint lacked specifics on the publication location and its impact - Upheld the dismissal of the complaint and the subsequent revision petition [Paras 8-10].

Dismissal and Future Course of Action - Petition dismissed, with the court noting that the dismissal is not on merit - Complainant allowed to file a new complaint before the appropriate court, in accordance with law [Para 12].

Matrimonial Dispute - Divorce Petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Allegations of cruelty and desertion by the appellant/husband against the respondent/wife - Appellant's claim of mistreatment and refusal to live together - Respondent's assertions of being a dutiful wife and attempts at reconciliation - Assessment of evidence and credibility of parties' testimonies - Lack of substantiated allegations of cruelty or desertion - Observations on reconciliatory efforts and intention to maintain matrimonial obligations - Dismissal of divorce petition - Principle of not rewarding unilateral refusal of matrimonial obligations - Appeal dismissed.

Cruelty and Desertion Allegations – Evaluation – The Court extensively reviewed allegations of cruelty and desertion made by the appellant/husband, considering evidence including behavioral instances, separation periods, and attempts at reconciliation. [Para 20-45]

Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) – Findings – Held, allegations of cruelty by the appellant/husband were unsubstantiated. The court agreed with the lower court's conclusion that the incidents cited by the appellant were part of normal marital adjustments and did not constitute legal cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [Para 23-24]

Desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) – Analysis – Held, the evidence did not support the claim of desertion by the respondent/wife. The Court noted the respondent’s continuous efforts for reconciliation and the lack of any intention on the part of the appellant/husband to resume cohabitation, contradicting the claim of desertion. [Para 25-47]

Decision – Dismissal of Divorce Appaeal – The Court concluded that the appellant/husband's conduct was recalcitrant and unreasonable, failing to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court’s decision. [Para 48-50]

Theft and Recovery of Bicycles – Petitioners accused of stealing bicycles – Recovery of stolen bicycles from possession of A.1 and A.2 following their arrest – Identified by the original owners in a Test Identification Parade. [Paras 3, 5, 11-17, 20-21]

Conduct of Test Identification Parade – Petitioners’ contention that Test Identification Parade was not conducted in accordance with the law – Dismissed by the court, citing adequate evidence from witnesses and lack of valid reasons to disbelieve the procedure. [Para 22]

Examination of Witnesses – PW1 to PW6 confirmed theft of their bicycles – PW7 conducted Test Identification Parade – PW9, a mediator, corroborated the prosecution's case – PW10, the investigating officer, testified regarding the recovery of bicycles. [Paras 12-20]

Appellate Decision – Lower courts’ judgments upheld – Petitioners’ revision against the decision of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2005 dismissed – Petitioners’ conviction under Section 411 IPC confirmed. [Paras 22-24]

The Criminal Revision Case No. 850 of 2009 dismissed, upholding the judgment dated 13.05.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2005. The conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 411 IPC confirmed.

Jurisdictional Error in Order by Principal Sessions Judge – Dismissal of petition for return of seized property (vehicles) under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. by Principal Sessions Judge held as jurisdictionally incorrect – Jurisdiction for such petitions lies with the Jurisdictional Magistrate under MMDR Act and relevant Supreme Court decisions – Application for release of vehicle should be made before the jurisdictional Magistrate, not Sessions Court [Para 7].

Ownership and Non-Involvement in Crime – Petitioner, owner of seized vehicles, not involved in the crime – Vehicles seized for illegal transportation of sand – Petitioner's argument centered on non-involvement and necessity of vehicles for livelihood [Paras 2, 4].

Protection of Seized Property and Legal Precedent – Concern about seized vehicles being exposed to damage due to natural elements – Reference to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai case by petitioner’s counsel for the protection of seized property rights [Para 4].

Opposition by Respondent and Seizure Justification – Respondent's contention that vehicles were seized for transporting sand illegally and might be used for similar offences in future – Opposition to the release of vehicles [Para 5].

Legal Principles Regarding Confiscation and Release of Property – Discussion of legal principles regarding the initiation of confiscation proceedings and release of property under Section 21(4-A) of MMDR Act – Reiteration that application for vehicle release lies with the Jurisdictional Magistrate [Para 6].

Decision – Impugned order by Principal Sessions Judge set aside – Petitioner granted liberty to file petition before Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate for interim custody of the vehicle – Jurisdictional Magistrate directed to decide the petition within two months of filing [Para 7].

Matrimonial Law - Marital Discord – Grant of Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – The High Court granted a decree of divorce in favor of the husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife's involvement in multiple criminal cases against the husband and his family, along with her failure to disprove desertion, led the Court to conclude that the marital relationship was irreparably damaged and constituted cruelty. [Para 17-18]

Desertion – Interpretation and Analysis – The Court held that the wife's separation from the husband without reasonable cause and against his will, coupled with her refusal to return to the matrimonial home and continuous litigation, satisfied the legal definition of desertion. The husband's efforts for restitution through notice, contrasted with the wife's litigation stance, further substantiated this finding. [Para 19]

Cruelty – Analysis of Actions and Legal Implications – The Court determined that the wife's actions, including false criminal accusations against the husband and his family, refusal to allow the husband access to their child, and various litigations, amounted to mental cruelty. Such conduct was seen to lower the husband's reputation and caused him anguish, meeting the threshold for cruelty under matrimonial law. [Para 18]

Decision – Dissolution of Marriage – The Court dissolved the marriage solemnized on 09.02.2014, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Jabalpur. [Para 20]

Proclaimed Person And Settlement – Quashing Of Fir – Fir No.310 Dated 07.04.2020 Under Section 174-A Of Ipc In Police Station Htm Hisar, Due To Petitioner Being Declared Proclaimed Person In Section 138 Ni Act Case – Settlement Led To Withdrawal Of The Complaint, Leading To This Quashing Petition. [Para 1, 3]

Facts Of The Case – Dishonoured Cheque And Subsequent Proceedings – Petitioner Issued Cheque Which Was Dishonoured – Declared Proclaimed, Then Settled The Matter, Leading To Withdrawal Of Complaint Under Section 138 Of Ni Act. [Para 2]

Legal Counsel Submissions – Petitioner’s Counsel Argued Wrongful Declaration As Proclaimed Person – Settlement Resulted In Dismissal Of Complaint Under Section 138 Ni Act – State Counsel Opposed Quashing Of Fir. [Para 4, 5]

Court's Consideration – Analysis Of Facts And Circumstances – Acknowledgement Of Fir's Basis On Being Declared A Proclaimed Person And Subsequent Withdrawal Of Complaint. [Para 6, 7]

Precedent Reference – Citation Of Similar Cases – Fir Under Section 174-A Ipc Quashed Due To Settlement In Main Petition – Continuation Deemed Abuse Of Process Of Law In Various Similar Cases. [Para 8, 10, 11]

Court's Decision – Fir No.310 Dated 07.04.2020 And Subsequent Proceedings Quashed – Based On Settlement In Negotiable Instruments Act Proceedings. [Para 12, 13]

Petitioner’s Arrest and Application for Default Bail – Bharat Bhushan, the petitioner, was arrested on 07.03.2023 – Arrest in connection with FIR No.168 involving charges under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Application for default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. after the lapse of 180 days of investigation period – Dismissal of the application by the trial court on grounds of granted extensions [Paras 2-3, 5].

Extensions Granted to Investigation Agency – The first extension of 30 days granted by the trial court on 31.08.2023 – A second extension of 180 days granted on 27.09.2023 – Challenge to these extensions for non-compliance with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act – Argument that extensions were against the law, with the total detention period exceeding the maximum 365 days allowed [Paras 3-4, 12].

Legal Analysis – The court examines the compliance with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act and the principles established by the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur’s case – Requirement for the Public Prosecutor’s report for extending the investigation period – Failure of the prosecution to submit such a report in the first extension – Improper grant of the second extension as total detention exceeded 365 days [Paras 9-12].

Decision – The High Court sets aside both the impugned orders granting extensions – Petitioner’s right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is recognized due to incomplete investigation – Petitioner to be enlarged on bail, subject to the trial Court/Magistrate’s satisfaction – Merits of the case remain unaffected by this decision [Paras 11-14].

Bail Application under Sections 439 of CrPC and 45 of PMLA – Accused, Jayram Vinayak Deshpande, former Sub-Divisional Officer, charged under PMLA for facilitating illegal land conversion and construction within Coastal Regulation Zone-III, aiding in money laundering activities. [Paras 1-4, 12.2]

Proceedings Originated from Environmental Violation – ECIR based on a complaint for violations of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Accused alleged to misuse authority, facilitating illegal land conversion and construction, leading to money laundering activities. [Paras 3, 12.2]

Accusations and Role in Money Laundering – Deshpande accused of assisting prime accused Sadanand Kadam and Anil Parab in laundering proceeds of crime through unauthorized land development – Charged with ignoring regulations and providing illegal permissions. [Paras 4, 12.1, 12.2]

Comparison with Co-Accused’s Bail – Supreme Court granted bail to co-accused Sadanand Kadam – Court considered this while deciding on Deshpande's bail, noting his lesser role in the crime compared to Kadam. [Paras 6, 12, 13]

Special Court’s Observation – Special Court acknowledged Deshpande did not generate proceeds of crime but assisted in laundering – Noted that Deshpande was not a beneficiary of proceeds of crime. [Para 11]

Bail Granted – Considering observations and circumstances, including bail to co-accused, bail granted to Deshpande under stringent conditions, including bond and non-interference with witnesses or evidence. [Paras 12, 13, Order (a)-(f)]