Civil Law - Trademark and Passing Off - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 27 - Maintainability of suit for unregistered trademark - Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against defendants for using a deceptively similar name and design for bidi products causing confusion in the market - Trial Court decreed the suit - Appellants argued before High Court that the suit was barred under Section 27 for infringement of an unregistered trademark - High Court held that while Section 27(1) bars suits for infringement of unregistered trademarks Section 27(2) expressly preserves the common law right to maintain an action for passing off - The pleadings clearly established a case of passing off as the defendants were misrepresenting their goods as those of the plaintiff - Held - The suit for passing off is maintainable despite the trademark being unregistered - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 13-17].

Civil Law - Passing Off - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 27(2) - Concept of passing off - The Court clarified that passing off signifies the illegal use of a trade name or design in a manner that misleads the public into believing that the products of one party are those of another - This action protects the goodwill and reputation of the legitimate owner - Held - The action for passing off is distinct from an infringement action and remains an available remedy for unregistered trademarks - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004 passed by the District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Suit No.2-A/2000 is upheld.

Criminal Law - Rape - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 - False implication and improbable prosecution story - Appellants were convicted for allegedly raping the prosecutrix in a maize field - Prosecution witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 gave inconsistent statements regarding the sequence of the act and the roles of the accused - Accused Ramesh sustained seven injuries while the prosecutrix sustained none - Absence of any injuries on the prosecutrix or her private parts despite alleged violent assault - Prosecution failed to produce vital witness Tej Singh - Medical evidence did not support the occurrence of rape in the manner alleged - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence set aside - [Paras 1-44].

Evidence Law - Witness Testimony - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Credibility of sole testimony - Court held that while a conviction can rest on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such evidence must be cogent and inspire confidence - Where the prosecution story is inherently improbable and contradicts medical findings, the testimony cannot be relied upon - Inconsistencies regarding which accused committed the act first and lack of struggle marks on the victim render the case doubtful - Held - Testimony of prosecutrix and eyewitnesses discredited due to material contradictions - [Paras 29-39].

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of injuries - Appellant Ramesh sustained seven injuries while witnesses claimed to have caught him during the act - Absence of corresponding injuries on the witnesses or the victim suggests a concocted story of assault - Held - Discrepancies in the sequence of events and the physical state of the accused and victim corroborate the defense of false implication due to prior enmity - [Paras 33-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside - Appeal against Appellant No. 1 Ramesh stands abated due to death - Appellant No. 2 Kalu acquitted and directed to be released forthwith subject to Section 437A CrPC.

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 376(2)(g) - Appellants convicted of rape and murder primarily on evidence of witnesses claiming to have seen the appellants with the victim or at the place of occurrence - Prosecution failed to provide forensic link between the appellants and the deceased despite collecting biological samples - Trial Court relied on tutored witnesses and inconsistent statements to establish guilt - High Court held that in the absence of direct eyewitnesses and forensic corroboration, the circumstantial chain remains incomplete - Mere suspicion cannot substitute legal proof - Held - Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted - [Paras 43-76].

Evidence Law - Last Seen Theory - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability - Prosecution must establish that the time gap between the deceased being last seen alive and the discovery of the body is so small that the possibility of another person being the author of the crime is excluded - In this case, two full days elapsed between the last sighting and the estimated time of death - Held - Last seen theory cannot form the sole basis of conviction without corroborative connectivity - [Paras 50-51].

Evidence Law - Discovery of Fact - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Admissibility - Appellants allegedly pointed out the place of occurrence to police - Held - Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not apply where the place of occurrence was already known to the public and police and no incriminating object was recovered as a result of such information - [Paras 68-70].

Criminal Law - Investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 164 - Duty of Investigating Officer - IO failed to record statements of crucial prosecution witnesses under Section 164 CrPC despite the case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence - Failure to produce appellants for recording confession before a Magistrate - Held - In cases of purely circumstantial evidence, the IO must exercise greater vigilance and ensure judicial recording of statements to maintain credibility - [Paras 63-65].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants set at liberty forthwith subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC

Civil Law - Rent Control - Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 - Section 25-B - Eviction petition - Summary procedure - Petitioner-tenant filed application for leave to defend and subsequently sought to introduce additional documents under Section 151 CPC - Trial court dismissed application on grounds of delay and for being an attempt to circumvent the 15-day statutory period for filing grounds of defence - High Court held that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to bypass statutory timelines prescribed under Section 25-B of the DRC Act - Held - No jurisdictional error in the impugned order - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-30].Civil Law - Procedural Law - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Inherent powers - Whether applicable to supplement pleadings after expiry of statutory period - Petitioner sought to introduce identity documents of legal heirs and photographs of premises post-filing of leave to defend - Court held that mere assertion of documents becoming available is not a sufficient explanation - Principles of summary proceedings under Rent Act demand strict adherence to time limits - Held - Discretionary powers cannot be used to reopen completed stages of proceedings - [Paras 16-27].Civil Law - Eviction Petition - Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) - Joint tenancy - Landlord-tenant relationship - Petitioner challenged eviction on ground of non-joinder of legal heirs - Court reaffirmed that a landlord is not obliged to implead every legal heir of a deceased tenant and an eviction petition against one joint tenant is sufficient - Held - Proposed documents regarding legal heirs do not constitute a triable issue warranting leave to defend - [Paras 8-20].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 90 - Setting aside sale - Appellant-judgment debtor challenged auction sale citing undervaluation and non-compliance with publication procedures under Rule 54 - Execution Court dismissed application finding no material irregularity or fraud - High Court observed that sale valuation was higher than fair value and publication was duly effected as per Amin report - Held - Application under Rule 90 failed for lack of proof of material irregularity or substantial injury - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-10].

Civil Law - Execution - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 90 - Undervaluation - Determination of market value - Property lacked road access unlike the comparative plot used by appellant for valuation - Executing Court fixed upset price based on fair value and market estimates - Held - No evidence of undervaluation as court-fixed value was consistent with fair value register and property characteristics - [Paras 6-7].

Civil Law - Execution - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 54 - Sale Proclamation - Publicity and procedure - Allegation of insufficient publicity during court auction - Record showed Amin reported compliance with publication requirements - Held - Appellant failed to establish any material irregularity or fraud in the publication or conduct of sale - [Paras 8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order of the Execution Court affirmed – Costs imposed for protraction of execution proceedings.

Labour Law - Workmen Compensation - Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 - Section 10 - Limitation - Appellant-claimants challenged dismissal of claim petition filed six years after death of employee - Trial Court dismissed petition as time-barred - High Court observed that statutory period of two years was exceeded significantly - Appellants failed to file application for condonation of delay or provide justification for such delay before Commissioner - Held - Commissioner committed no error in dismissing claim petition in absence of prayer or grounds for condonation - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-8].

Civil Law - Procedural Law - Limitation Act 1963 - Condonation of delay - Requirement of formal application - Appellant argued Court should condone delay suo motu under welfare legislation principles - Held - While welfare laws warrant liberal construction mere absence of any explanation for inordinate delay justifies dismissal - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order of the Commissioner affirmed – No substantial question of law found – Admission of appeal declined.

Civil Law - Testamentary Succession - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Execution of Will - Appellants claimed property under a Will bequeathing limited interest to the testator's wife - Respondents contended Will was not executed in accordance with mandatory provisions - High Court observed that the sole examined attesting witness admitted she did not witness the testator sign and that she signed the document at the request of the appellant's brother outside the testator's presence - Held - Failure to prove due execution and attestation as per Section 63 renders the Will invalid - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 9-19].

Civil Law - Attestation of Will - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of execution - Propounder of a Will must prove that each attesting witness signed in the presence of the testator - Cross-examination of the witness revealing that the witness did not witness the execution or see the testator sign the document breaks the chain of proof - Held - Inconsistent affidavit evidence cannot override the mandatory requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act - [Paras 13-16].

Civil Law - Property Rights - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Intestate Succession - Upon the failure to prove the Will, the widow of the testator being the sole Class I legal heir acquires absolute interest in the estate of the deceased - Held - The widow was legally competent to alienate the property and the subsequent sale deeds in favour of the respondents are valid - [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Common judgment and decree dated 09/09/2019 in C.S. No. 227 of 1999 and T.O.S. No. 23 of 2008 confirmed - Parties to bear their own costs.

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Defendant seeking to amend written statement to correct typographical errors and headings regarding property ownership - Appellant contended that the amendment withdrew unequivocal admissions regarding her 1/7th share - Court held that amendments to written statements should be allowed liberally unless they withdraw a genuine admission or cause irreparable prejudice - The impugned amendment merely corrected internal inconsistencies regarding mutation entries and property ownership without altering the factual matrix or the nature of the suit - Court held that the amendment was bona fide and did not prejudice the appellant's legal rights - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-26].Civil Law - Judgment on Admissions - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Power of court to pass judgment on admissions - Appellant contended that original written statement constituted an unequivocal admission of share - Court held that the power under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right - Where the written statement as a whole denies the claim and raises preliminary objections regarding title and family settlements, no clear admission exists for a decree - Held - No error in the Single Judge's order - [Paras 18-24].Civil Law - Family Settlement - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 14 - Effect of family settlement on property rights - Respondents contended that properties are governed by a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 19.04.2002 - Court noted that the validity and binding nature of such settlement and its impact on the appellant's share remains a matter for trial - Amendment does not foreclose the adjudication of these rights - [Paras 12-16].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Dispute arising from land sale agreement - Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in an unregistered crime alleging non-refund of sale consideration - High Court held that allegations essentially arise out of an agreement of sale and financial dispute which can be investigated through documentary evidence - Court emphasized that custodial interrogation was not shown to be indispensable - Held - Petition allowed with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Pre-arrest Bail - Principles for grant - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 - Balancing personal liberty with investigation requirements - Court observed that judicial discretion must be exercised having regard to facts and circumstances including nature of offence and possibility of tampering with evidence - Held - Merely asserting the need for custodial interrogation without demonstrating why effective investigation is otherwise impossible does not warrant denial of protection - [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Subedari Police Station, on or before 28.09.2026 – Petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation and non-interference with witnesses.