Trademark Infringement – Pharmaceutical Product Similarity – AZIWOK vs. AZIWAKE – Alleged infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘AZIWOK’ by Defendant’s use of ‘AZIWAKE’ for similar azithromycin pharmaceutical products – Issues concerning phonetic similarity, potential consumer confusion, and need for clear distinction in pharmaceutical trademarks. [Paras 44-45, 52-56]

Preliminary Objection and Urgent Interim Relief – Rejection of Defendant’s objection based on Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act regarding pre-institution mediation necessity – Plaintiff’s case of urgent interim relief accepted. [Paras 27-40]

Phonetic Similarity – Application of ‘Pianotist’ test – Concluding AZIWAKE phonetically similar to AZIWOK, potentially confusing average consumer with imperfect recollection – Emphasis on increased caution in pharmaceutical trademark similarity cases following Cadila Health Care Ltd. Precedent. [Paras 43-45, 52-53]

Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm – Favoring Plaintiff due to longer history of trademark usage and potential brand dilution – Acknowledgment that monetary compensation inadequate for trademark infringement in pharmaceuticals. [Paras 68-69]

Decision – Grant of interim injunction against Defendant’s use of ‘AZIWAKE’ – Exception for existing market stock with specific compliance requirements. [Para 70]

Initiation of Contempt Proceedings – Contempt petition filed following the submission of an alleged fraudulent order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) by respondents in a trademark infringement case. [Para 1]

Investigation of Fraudulent Document – Inquiry conducted by Registrar (Vigilance) and Registrar (Original Side) into the authenticity of the document, revealing the document's suspicious nature. [Paras 4-6]

Unconditional Apology by Respondents – Respondents, particularly respondent No. 1, misled by advocate Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, tendered an unconditional apology and explained the acquisition of the document. [Paras 7-10]

Discharge from Contempt Proceedings – Court accepted the respondents' unconditional apology and discharged them from the proceedings. Directed Bar Council of Delhi to take action against Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal if guilty of producing the fraudulent document. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Contempt case disposed of with discharge of respondents. Direction issued to Bar Council of Delhi for appropriate action against the involved advocate. [Para 12]

Civil Revision Petition – Auction Sale Challenge – Revision against the order of the II Additional District Judge, Belgaum and the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belagavi in the matter of setting aside an auction sale – Auction sale held on 12.1.1990 challenged for irregularities and fraud – Revision allowed, auction sale set aside. [Para 1, 44(iv)]

Execution Proceedings – Mortgage Property Sale – Challenge to the auction sale of mortgaged property – Allegations of fraud and substantial undervaluation – Auction sale conducted without considering substantial deposits made by the judgment debtor – Execution Court and Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and amounts deposited by the judgment debtor. [Para 2-5, 18-21, 29, 39]

Mortgage – Right of Redemption – Mortgagor's right to redeem property until the sale is completed by registration – Deposits made by judgment debtor in excess of the decreetal amount – Mortgagor entitled to redeem the mortgaged property, preventing its sale in execution of the decree. [Para 34-38, 42]

Procedural Irregularities – Auction Sale – Allegations of procedural irregularities and fraud in conducting auction sale – Inadequate publicity and valuation of the auctioned property – Sale of entire property without considering if a portion could satisfy the decree – Errors in the execution of the sale process resulting in the auction being set aside. [Para 16, 28, 31, 32, 43]

Decision – Auction sale held on 12.1.1990 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court for further proceedings – Orders of the II Additional District Judge and the II Additional Civil Judge in MA No.36/2001 and IA.No.3 in Execution Case No.268/2005 set aside. [Para 44]

Matrimonial Appeal – Dissolution of Marriage and Compensation Claims – Appellant husband's plea for dissolution of marriage on grounds of respondent wife's alleged impotency dismissed – Counter claim by respondent wife for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – Awarded compensation and maintenance by Family Court, Kollam. [Para 1-3]

Marital Torts and Compensation – Allegations of impotency and unknown disease against respondent wife deemed false, baseless, and defamatory – Entitlement of the victim to general damages for injuries sustained – Quantum of compensation and maintenance reviewed and modified. [Para 5-6, 10-11]

Assessment of Maintenance and Compensation – Consideration of income, assets, and living standards of parties – Monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- upheld, but compensation for marital tort reduced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. [Para 7-8, 11]

Retroactive Maintenance – Past maintenance rate modified from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month for the period from 01.11.2003 to 30.10.2006, considering respondent wife's initial claim. [Para 20-22]

Final Decision – High Court modifies the trial court's judgment regarding compensation and past maintenance – Appeals allowed in part, without cost. [Para 23]

Writ Petition – Delay and Laches – Challenging of Disciplinary Action:

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. C.D. Ramaiah & Ors. – Petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal’s award setting aside disciplinary action – Tribunal’s award based on delay condonation overruled due to substantial delay and laches in raising the dispute – Original disciplinary action confirmed. [Paras 2, 6-8]

Industrial Dispute – Adjudication of Delayed Claims:

Consideration of the delay in raising industrial disputes – Reference to the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another – Emphasis on the existence of an industrial dispute and the need for timely raising of disputes to avoid stale claims. [Paras 5-6]

Tribunal Award – Validity and Judicial Review:

Judicial scrutiny of the Industrial Tribunal’s decision – Tribunal’s condonation of delay in raising dispute found unjustified based on the Apex Court’s guidelines in Prabhakar’s case – Tribunal’s award set aside, confirming the original order of punishment. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Confirmation of Disciplinary Action:

High Court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal – Order of punishment dated 18.03.2003 against the respondent confirmed – Writ petition allowed in favor of the petitioner (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation). [Para 8]

Criminal Proceedings – Compromise and Quashing of FIR – Application for quashing of FIR based on compromise between accused and aggrieved persons – FIR related to various IPC sections including 388, 389, 411, 170, 171, 120-B – Petitioners seeking quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings post-compromise. [Para 1-3, 12-13]

Judicial Analysis – Examination of compromise – The court’s analysis focused on the genuineness of the compromise, absence of coercion, and the nature of offences involved – Emphasis on the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence and securing ends of justice – Inherent power of the court under Section 482 CrPC considered suitable for quashing FIR in the present case. [Para 5, 6, 13]

Legal Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court Judgments – The court cited various judgments including Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat, and Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh – Principles laid down in these judgments guided the decision to quash the FIR and proceedings in the current case. [Para 7-9, 11]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – The High Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings – Bail bonds of petitioners discharged – Petition allowed based on the compromise and peculiar facts of the case. [Para 13]

Limitation Period – Bar of Limitation Applicable to Criminal Complaints – Complaint filed for offences under the Insecticides Act, 1968, challenged for being barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Accused argued that the complaint, filed after over 5 years from the date of the Public Analyst's report, exceeded the three-year limitation period for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to two years – Reliance placed on Supreme Court's decision in M/s Cheminova India Ltd. vs State of Punjab and another, and similar High Court precedents. [Para 3(i), 10, 13, 19]

Criminal Procedure – Computation of Limitation Period – Exclusion of time for obtaining government sanction under Section 470 Cr.P.C. considered – Limitation period still exceeded even after exclusion – No evidence of delay condonation by the court as required under Section 473 Cr.P.C. [Para 12, 16, 17, 18]

Liability of Dealers and Marketers under Insecticides Act – Petitioners, being dealers or marketers and not manufacturers, argued non-liability for misbranding of insecticide – Sample drawn from original sealed packing without evidence of tampering by petitioners – Relying on precedent, court held dealers/marketers not vicariously liable for misbranding by manufacturers. [Para 4, 21]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Complaint, summoning order, and all subsequent proceedings quashed due to being barred by limitation and non-applicability of misbranding liability to the petitioners as dealers/marketers. [Para 20, 22]

Bail Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for Regular Bail – Petitioner seeking regular bail in case of FIR No. 49 for offences under IPC sections 148, 149, 201, 323, 325, 307, 379-B, 452, 506 & Arms Act Section 25 – Allegations of violent assault with weapons and theft. [Para 1]

FIR Details and Allegations – FIR alleges the petitioner and others attacked complainant with weapons, causing injuries and theft – FIR details a violent brawl at complainant's residence. [Para 2]

Petitioner's Defense and Co-Accused's Bail – Petitioner claims non-participation in the incident, citing bail granted to co-accused Satish under similar circumstances – Argument on petitioner's non-involvement and completion of investigation. [Para 3]

Opposition to Bail by State and Complainant – State and complainant counsel oppose bail, highlighting the severity of allegations and injuries inflicted – Emphasis on specific role attributed to the petitioner. [Para 4]

Decision – Court notes completion of investigation and challan presentation – Considering petitioner's incarceration duration, bail granted with conditions – Bail to be furnished to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. [Para 6]

Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C Interpretation – Maintenance Default – Sentencing Duration – Upholding Family Court's decision to sentence petitioner to ten months imprisonment for 28 months of maintenance arrears - Discussion on interpretations of Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C regarding imprisonment duration for maintenance default - Affirmation that a month's imprisonment for every month's default is the maximum under Section 125(3). [Paras 9-14, 16-24, 26-28]

Procedural Aspects under Section 421 of Cr.P.C – Evaluation of Family Court's adherence to Section 421 of Cr.P.C procedures prior to sentencing - Reference to procedural changes post-Rajnesh v. Neha judgment - Justification for non-application of Section 421 procedures due to respondent's no property declaration. [Paras 29-34, 37]

Decision – Dismissal of the revision petition - Confirmation of the imprisonment sentence by the Family Court - Clarification that payment of full arrears before sentence completion leads to release. [Para 38]