Civil Procedure – Recovery on Promissory Notes – Defendant appealed against trial court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of sums due on two promissory notes – Defendant claimed notes were forged and plaintiff lacked capacity to lend – Trial court’s judgment upheld, appeal dismissed – Defendant’s plea that her name was misstated as Saroja instead of Sarojamma found baseless – Evidence confirmed that defendant signed as Saroja in various official documents [Paras 1-20].

Burden of Proof – Negotiable Instruments – Trial court properly applied presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Plaintiff demonstrated execution of promissory notes and capacity to lend – Defendant failed to rebut presumption or provide substantive evidence against consideration – Apex Court precedents emphasized presumption of consideration unless adequately disproved by defendant [Paras 12-18].

Defendant’s Identity and Signature – Plea of Forgery – Defendant’s contention regarding incorrect name and forgery dismissed – Documentary evidence confirmed defendant’s use of the name Saroja – Scribe of promissory notes corroborated plaintiff’s case, while defendant failed to present credible counter-evidence [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Decree and judgment of the trial court affirmed – No costs awarded – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 19-20].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions and Considerations – The applicant, aged 74, sought anticipatory bail in relation to an FIR filed under various sections of the IPC involving allegations of forgery and conspiracy. The court considered the applicant's age, the civil nature of the underlying dispute, the delayed filing of the FIR, and the applicant's role as an attesting witness. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail can be granted irrespective of the nature of the offences unless barred by statute and reaffirmed the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Paras 1-21].

Non-Disclosure and Its Impact – The court addressed the issue of non-disclosure of prior writ petition and Section 482 application by the applicant. It held that while non-disclosure of material facts can be fatal in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does not apply with the same rigor to statutory powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. [Paras 12-20].

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail – The court imposed conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, including executing a bond, not committing similar offences, not making inducements, and not leaving India without prior permission of the court [Para 22].

Decision: The application for anticipatory bail is allowed. The applicant is granted anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to conditions [Para 22].

Partition – Ancestral Properties – Plaintiffs sought partition of A to C schedule properties into 12 equal shares, claiming 7 shares – Defendants contested on the grounds of independent acquisitions and pre-existing partitions – Trial Court granted plaintiffs 7/12^th share – On appeal, High Court examined the evidence and upheld the Trial Court’s decree [Paras 1-24].

Proof of Will – Requirement under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act – Defendants produced a registered Will allegedly executed by Sundarayya – Propounder failed to prove Will as required – Evidence showed inconsistencies in attestation – Will not deemed genuine [Paras 18-22].

Acquisition and Self-Acquired Properties – Defendants contended certain properties were purchased independently – Evidence revealed no independent income source – Presumption that properties acquired from joint family funds – Items declared as joint family properties [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s decree upheld – Plaintiffs entitled to 7/12^th share in ancestral properties – Registered Will declared invalid – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Para 25].

Conditional Attachment – Acceptance of Security – Appeal against Sub Court’s decision accepting security of immovable property for lifting conditional attachment – Property in question recorded as paddy land – Appellant's concern about insufficient value and legal issues with security offered – Sub Court’s order set aside due to unresolved issues about property’s classification and value [Paras 1-7].

Revenue Records – Correction and Legal Status – Dispute over property recorded as paddy land in revenue records – 1st defendant's efforts to correct records – Court emphasizes need for proper classification before accepting property as security – Future applications permitted upon correction of records [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Conditional attachment over plaint A schedule property to continue until sufficient security is provided – 1st defendant allowed to file fresh application if revenue records are corrected – Emphasis on current insufficiency of security due to legal and factual uncertainties [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Negligent Driving – Petitioner convicted under Section 304-A IPC and relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act for causing death by negligent driving – Trial court and appellate court affirmed conviction – Revision court considered the petitioner's age, lack of mens rea, and absence of antecedents – Highlighted the potential of the petitioner’s future being ruined by the conviction stigma – Applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, supporting the prosecution [Paras 1-17].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Court analyzed the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Emphasized the discretion of courts to apply probation in cases involving young, first-time offenders with bright futures – Cited relevant precedents where probation was granted in similar circumstances [Paras 12-17].

Res ipsa loquitur – Doctrine Application – Prosecution's case supported by the doctrine, indicating the accident speaks for itself regarding the petitioner’s negligence – Both courts established petitioner’s negligent driving was the cause of death [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Criminal revision application partly allowed – Conviction maintained, but sentence suspended with the petitioner released on probation for one year – Petitioner to enter into a bond for maintaining peace and good behavior – Fine paid under Motor Vehicles Act forfeited to the government; fine under Section 304-A IPC to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased [Para 17].

Caste Certificate – Provisional Admission and Employment – Petitioner admitted to M.B.B.S. and M.D. courses based on provisional caste certificate – Caste claim invalidated by Scrutiny Committee – Petitioner completed courses and was appointed as Medical Officer – Petitioner sought protection of education and employment – High Court dismissed the petition, citing the Apex Court’s judgment in Jagdish Bahira & Others v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates withdrawal of benefits secured through invalid caste certificates – Court observed that protection of such benefits violates constitutional and statutory norms [Paras 1-14].

Equity Principle – Protection of Education – Petitioner’s plea for protection based on prolonged benefits availed due to inaction by authorities – Court rejected plea, emphasizing that equitable considerations cannot override statutory mandates – Apex Court precedents in Jagdish Bahira and other relevant judgments upheld, stating that benefits drawn under false caste claims must be withdrawn to preserve integrity and rule of law [Paras 10-12].

Legislative Mandate – Withdrawal of Benefits – Supreme Court decisions reiterated – Benefits drawn under false claims to be withdrawn – No protection for admissions or employment secured on invalid caste certificates – Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 emphasized [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No protection for educational and employment benefits drawn under invalid caste claim – Effect and operation of the judgment stayed for four weeks – Rule discharged, no costs [Para 14].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Arrears of Rent – Petitioner tenant failed to pay rent for over six months and ignored landlord’s notice demanding arrears – Landlord entitled to decree for possession under Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant's defence of non-receipt of notice and payment to another heir rejected – Notice considered duly served – Appeal dismissed, eviction decree upheld [Paras 1-30].

Fixation of Standard Rent – Application filed after prescribed period – Bombay Rent Act requires filing within one month of notice – Application rejected – Standard rent application cannot nullify decree for arrears of rent and eviction [Paras 26-33].

Service of Notice – Validity – Notice sent to tenant’s workplace and marked as refused – Held valid service – Tenant had prior knowledge of landlord’s ownership and obligation to pay rent [Paras 18-20].

Tenant's Obligations – Arrears of Rent – Tenant failed to deposit arrears during pendency of suit – Triple default: pre-suit, post-suit, and during suit – No protection under Section 12(3)(b) for non-compliance [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Tenant's eviction affirmed – Application for fixation of standard rent dismissed as untimely and ineffective in negating default [Paras 33-34].

Trademark Law – Cancellation – Procedural Error – Appellant sought cancellation of respondent's trademark ‘CLARIWASH’ on grounds of deceptive similarity and procedural errors in the examination report – Claimed prior use of ‘CLARI’ formative trademarks – Trial court dismissed cancellation petition – On appeal, High Court held procedural errors alone insufficient for cancellation unless registration violates substantive provisions of the Act – No deceptive similarity found between ‘CLARIWASH’ and appellant’s trademarks ‘CLARI-FI’ and ‘CLARIMOIST’ – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-45].

Trademark Similarity – Examination of Competing Trademarks – Marks must be considered as a whole – Appellant's claim of family of ‘CLARI’ formative trademarks not established at material time – No prima facie similarity between ‘CLARIWASH’ and appellant’s trademarks [Paras 30-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment – Registration of respondent's trademark upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 43-45].

Criminal Law – Inclusion of POCSO Charges – Petitioner challenged the rejection of her application for addition of Section 12 of the POCSO Act – Case initially filed under Sections 363 and 366A IPC for enticement of minor daughter – Trial Court dismissed inclusion of POCSO charges citing lack of sufficient material – High Court upheld the dismissal, confirming no evidence supporting POCSO charges [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 216 Cr.P.C. – Court’s Power to Alter Charges – The Court may alter or add charges at any time before judgment – Requirement for material evidence to justify such alterations emphasized – High Court found no materials warranting the addition of Section 12 POCSO charges, supporting the Trial Court’s decision [Paras 6-8].

Facts of the Case – Victim enticed by accused, later married and living together – State submitted that the couple now leads a conjugal life – Victim was 13 years old at the time of offense – High Court noted lack of material evidence to support POCSO charges – Current charges under Sections 363/366A IPC deemed appropriate [Paras 2-4, 8].

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – High Court dismissed the application for addition of POCSO charges – Directed return of case diary to the State’s counsel – No interference with lower court’s order required [Para 10-14].