Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Influencer Speech – Defamation, Disparagement and Trademark Infringement Allegations – Right to Reputation vs. Free Speech – Plaintiff, a nutritional supplements company, sought interim injunction against defendants (social media influencers) for publishing YouTube and Instagram videos critiquing its product ‘ISO PRO’ based on third-party lab reports – The Court held that the influencers’ conduct was supported by evidence, formed part of constructive criticism, and did not warrant gagging free speech [Paras 1-9, 60-116].

Limitation – Composite Suit Not Barred – Plaintiff’s action for defamation, trademark infringement, and disparagement held to be within limitation – Held that Article 75 of the Limitation Act does not apply to composite suits involving commercial and IP claims – Continuous cause of action applies due to ongoing publication on digital platforms – Suit governed by residuary Article 113 with a three-year limitation [Paras 22-27].

Commercial Nature – Jurisdiction of Commercial Court Upheld – Reliefs sought linked to commercial reputation, brand value, and IP violations – Suit falls within definition under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Merely because it includes defamation does not disqualify it as a commercial dispute [Paras 28-30].

Trademark Use – No Prima Facie Infringement – Fair Use – Use of plaintiff’s trademarks in critical videos held to be for informational purposes and not “in the course of trade” – Such usage did not amount to advertising or unfair advantage under Sections 29(4) or 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act – Satirical or referential usage, absent commercial exploitation, not infringing [Paras 110-111].

Defamation – Defence of Truth and Fair Comment – Bona Fide Reports – Defendants relied on reports from NABL-accredited labs showing discrepancies between labelled and actual nutritional content – Court held that lab results were credible and plaintiff failed to rebut them with contrary evidence – Defence of truth was upheld; opinion based on lab data qualified as fair comment [Paras 70-79, 89].

Disparagement – Elements of Malicious Falsehood Not Satisfied – Plaintiff failed to prove that impugned content was false or published with malice – Drop in sales not conclusively linked to influencer videos – No competitive business motive shown by defendants at the time of video publication – No prima facie case for disparagement made out [Paras 90-92].

ASCI Guidelines – Not Applicable to Genuine, Unpaid Commentary – Guidelines for influencer advertising inapplicable as impugned videos were not paid promotions – Defendant’s subsequent affiliation with ‘Trustified’ launched after video publication was irrelevant – Qualifications not necessary where statements are backed by verifiable evidence [Paras 84-88].

Satirical Expression and Consumer Awareness – Expression Like ‘Ghatiya’ Not Defamatory – Use of colloquial or exaggerated language (‘Doctor Has No Choice’, ‘ghatiya’) held not to defeat fair comment defence – Satirical tone permissible under free speech and does not establish malice in absence of misleading content [Paras 82-83].

Decision – Interim Relief Denied – Prima Facie Defence of Free Speech Made – Court refused to restrain influencers at interim stage – Held that content was based on credible reports, expressed in public interest, and not shown to be false or malicious – Defendants entitled to constitutional protection of speech – Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie infringement or irreparable harm [Paras 112-116].
 

Civil Law - Contract – Fraudulent Execution – Misuse of Advocate-Client Relationship – Agreement Cancelled - Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an advocate, misused trust and obtained signatures on an agreement of sale under the pretext of executing a rental agreement – The Trial Court found misrepresentation and fraud – Held: The defendant abused the Advocate–Client relationship, and the agreement of sale was obtained by misrepresentation, thus liable to be cancelled [Paras 10-21].

Proof and Evidence – Adverse Inference Against Defendant – No Oral Evidence – Decree Confirmed - Defendant failed to lead oral evidence despite multiple opportunities, leading to an adverse inference being drawn – Plaintiff’s evidence, supported by documents like bank transactions, legal notices, and photographs, was found credible – Held: Decree for cancellation of agreement and award of damages justified [Paras 12-18].

Damages – Demolition of Property – Rs. 10,00,000/- Awarded – Defendant demolished the superstructure and removed valuable fixtures without lawful authority – Held: Plaintiff entitled to damages as assessed based on Advocate Commissioner’s report and documentary evidence [Paras 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court in O.S. No.2521/2019 dated 29.04.2024 upheld – No order as to costs [Para 24].
 

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Criminal Breach of Trust – Sections 409 and 424 IPC – Appeal Dismissed - The appellant challenged the acquittal order, alleging misappropriation of partnership firm funds by the respondents – The Trial Court had acquitted respondents citing lack of documentary evidence proving dishonest misappropriation – Held: The appellant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents misappropriated the firm's money and did not substantiate entrustment and misuse as required under Section 409 IPC [Paras 2, 18-21].

Partnership Dispute – Civil Nature of Dispute – No Criminality Attributed – Appeal Dismissed - The dispute between the parties arose out of business transactions within a partnership firm – Held: The allegations mainly constituted civil disputes over accounting and settlement, and the criminal charges were not established independently – Criminal liability cannot be presumed merely from civil disputes [Paras 12, 17-18].

Standard of Proof – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles Applied – Double Presumption - In an appeal against acquittal, double presumption of innocence operates in favour of the accused – Held: The appellate Court should not interfere unless the trial Court’s view is perverse or unsustainable – No compelling reasons found to overturn the acquittal [Paras 22-24].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed - No evidence showing criminal breach of trust or fraud beyond reasonable doubt – No perversity in trial Court’s acquittal order – Appeal dismissed, upholding the trial Court’s judgment [Paras 23-24].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - POCSO Act – Ingredients Not Attracted – FIR Quashed – Accusation Against Petitioners Held Malicious – The complainant alleged harassment and attempted sexual assault on her 17-year-old daughter by her brothers and their children – FIR registered under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act – Court held that no ingredients of “sexual intent” or “sexual assault” as defined under Sections 7, 11, or 12 were present – Held: Complaint was retaliatory in nature, filed in context of ongoing property disputes [Paras 5-8, 14-15].

Section 354 IPC – Outrage of Modesty – No Material to Support Allegation – Court found no indication of intent to outrage modesty as required under Section 354 IPC – Allegations were vague and unsupported by evidence or witness statements – Permitting investigation held to be an abuse of process [Paras 9-10].

Section 506 IPC – Criminal Intimidation – Ingredients Lacking – Mere allegations of threats insufficient – FIR failed to disclose any specific intimidation to person or property as required under Section 503 IPC – Held: No prima facie case made out for criminal intimidation [Paras 10-11].

Abuse of Process – Complaint Filed as Counterblast to Family Dispute – FIR Quashed – Court observed numerous civil and criminal proceedings already pending among the parties – Held: FIR filed to harass petitioners and settle scores – Quashing justified under Section 482 CrPC to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-13].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR in Crime No. 400 of 2024 Quashed – All proceedings arising therefrom terminated – Interim stay of investigation made absolute [Para 13].
 

Civil Law - Tenancy Rights – Effect of Mortgage in Favour of Tenant – Section 25A of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act – Tenancy Upheld in Part - Petitioners proved tenancy rights over Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4 by documentary evidence and admission in earlier civil suit – Held: Mortgage did not extinguish tenancy, it only suspended it temporarily under Section 25A – Petitioners entitled to purchase Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4 [Paras 1-37].

Tenancy Claim – Land Partly Handed to Third Party Mortgagee – Application of Section 25A – Tenancy Rights Lost in Respect of Gat No.31 - As possession of Gat No.31 had passed to third party (non-tenant) mortgagee, tenancy rights of Petitioners not protected under Section 25A – Petitioners failed to establish tenancy over Gat No.31 [Paras 29-33].

Interpretation – No Implied Surrender of Tenancy – Execution of Mortgage Not Tantamount to Surrender – Section 15 of Tenancy Act – Petitioners Continued as Tenants - Court held that execution of mortgage deed did not amount to surrender of tenancy rights, especially prior to 1956 amendment introducing surrender provisions – Tenancy merely suspended, not extinguished [Paras 34-35].

Civil Court Admissions – Binding Nature in Tenancy Proceedings – Admission of Tenancy in Earlier Suit Recognised - Admissions made by landlords in earlier civil litigation found binding and not to be disregarded by tenancy authorities – Admissions constituted waiver of proof [Para 25].

Final Decision – Petitions Partly Allowed – MRT Order Set Aside Qua Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4, Sustained for Gat No.31 - Petitioners declared entitled to purchase Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4 under Section 32G – No entitlement for Gat No.31 – Interim applications disposed of [Paras 38-40].
 

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Return of Land – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Not Returned – Claim Rejected - Petitioner sought return of acquired land contending that project was abandoned and land was unused – Held: Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no provision mandating return of acquired land for non-use – Claims for return upheld under Act 30 of 2013 are not applicable – Reliance placed on multiple Supreme Court judgments affirming non-return of acquired land [Paras 15-16].

Compensation – Availability of Remedies – Liberty Granted - Petitioner directed to avail remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation – Compensation already deposited before Civil Court – Held: Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedy under Land Acquisition Act [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed; liberty given to pursue appropriate remedy under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
 

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement Suit – Commercial Suit Classification – Section 12 of CC Act – Specific Value Sufficient – Suit for infringement of ‘KRANTI’ trademark valued at over Rs.95 lakhs – Court held that valuation as pleaded, based on market value under Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, satisfies ‘specified value’ requirement [Paras 6-13, 16-18].

Framing of Additional Issues – Scope Under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC – No Additional Issue Required – Court emphasized that issues are framed based on material propositions in pleadings – Petitioners’ plea for framing additional issue on jurisdiction rejected as no material variance or necessity shown [Paras 15-17].

Pleadings Interpretation – Hyper-Technical Objection Rejected – Absence of express mention of ‘specified value’ wording not fatal where pleadings, market value, and relief valuation collectively satisfied statutory requirements – Substance over form adopted [Paras 18-19].

Relationship Between CC Act and Suits Valuation/Court Fees Act – Harmonious Reading – CC Act provisions do not override the Court Fees Act or Suits Valuation Act – Principles of valuation under Court Fees law prevail unless specifically altered – Confirmed by reliance on Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel case [Paras 19-20].

Limited Interference Under Article 227 – Scope Explained – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is limited, not appellate, and interference warranted only in case of grave injustice or jurisdictional error, neither of which existed here [Para 21].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Impugned order of Trial Court upheld – No interference called for – Suit to proceed before Commercial Court based on existing issues – Petitioners directed to bear their own costs [Paras 22-23].

Service Law - Pension Law - Pension Calculation – Deputation Allowance – Exclusion from Average Emoluments – Deputation Allowance Not Included - Petitioners contended that deputation allowance received during service on deputation should be included in the last drawn salary for calculating pension – Held: Deputation allowance cannot be treated as part of basic pay for pension fixation as per Bank Pension Regulations and Government Clarifications – Pension to be based on substantive pay in parent bank, not the higher pay on deputation [Paras 2-3, 14-20].

Deputation – Nature and Effect on Service – Voluntary and Temporary Assignment - Deputation described as voluntary and temporary, with petitioners having no vested right for absorption in the borrowing organization – Deputation cannot be construed as promotion or higher substantive appointment merely because superannuation occurred during deputation period [Paras 5-12, 24-25].

Government Clarifications – Circular Dated 27 November 1998 – Clarificatory and Binding - Ministry of Finance circular clarified that pension should be based on pay in parent bank but for deputation – Deputation pay cannot be considered for calculating pensionary benefits [Para 15-16, 26].

Provident Fund Contributions – Impact on Pension Rights – Contributions Do Not Alter Basic Pay - The fact that provident fund was deducted on deputation allowance does not create a right to claim higher pension – Mistake, if any, cannot confer benefit contrary to regulations [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to have deputation allowance counted for pension fixation – Directions issued to refund provident fund contributions on deputation allowance with statutory interest [Paras 32-33].
 

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – False Accusations and Malicious Litigation – Divorce Granted – Appellant-husband alleged verbal and physical cruelty, police complaints, and baseless suspicions of infidelity – Respondent admitted her allegation of second marriage was based on hearsay – Court held: Repeated unfounded allegations, abusive conduct, and long separation constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce granted [Paras 2–3, 5, 9–14].

Family Law – Judicial Separation – Improper Invocation – No Power to Grant in RCR Petition – Judicial Separation Set Aside – Family Court granted judicial separation in both divorce and restitution petitions invoking Section 13A – Held: Court has no power to grant judicial separation in petition filed under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights – Judicial separation under H.M.O.P. No.1228/2014 was without jurisdiction – Set aside [Paras 3–4, 14, 16].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Witnesses – Effect – Family Members Not Examined – Not Fatal – Husband produced photo of injury allegedly inflicted by wife – Family Court discredited evidence due to non-examination of petitioner’s mother – Held: Petitioner’s testimony unshaken in cross-examination; absence of supporting witness not fatal – Finding of Family Court legally unsustainable [Paras 5, 10].

Family Law – Long Separation and Irretrievable Breakdown – Divorce Justified – Parties living separately since 2013 – Wife willing to give up custody without seeking visitation – Cumulative conduct showed irreparable breakdown – Cited Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan – Held: Marriage broken beyond repair; continuance would cause mental cruelty [Paras 8, 12–14].

Maintenance – Enhancement Justified – Increase in Living and Educational Costs – Family Court awarded ₹30,000/month maintenance – Court enhanced to ₹40,000/month considering child’s age and inflation – Directed payment from date of receipt of judgment copy [Para 15].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Divorce Decree Granted – Judicial Separation Set Aside – RCR Petition Dismissed – Maintenance Enhanced – Family Court Judgment dated 23.02.2021 set aside – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Para 16–17].