Assisted Reproductive Technology – Eligibility Criteria – Age Restriction – Respondent No.1 (wife) sought IVF treatment using donor sperm despite her husband (Respondent No.2) being aged 55 years – ART clinic denied service citing ineligibility of the couple as a whole under Section 21(g) of the ART Act – Held: The age restriction under Section 21(g)(ii) applies only where the male’s gamete is used – Where donor sperm is used, only the woman’s age is relevant – Married woman cannot be denied ART access on the sole ground of husband’s age if she seeks to use donor sperm with his consent [Paras 5, 20, 30]

Equality and Non-Discrimination – Married vs. Single Women – ART Act interpreted to avoid unconstitutional classification – Denial of ART services to married woman using donor sperm, while allowing access to single woman of same age, held discriminatory – Such a reading would place married women at unfair disadvantage – Held: Law must be interpreted harmoniously to uphold equal rights irrespective of marital status [Paras 5, 30]

Statutory Interpretation – Legislative Intent – Composite age restriction not prescribed in ART Act – Court refused to read additional conditions into clear statutory language – Held: When ART Act separately defines “woman” and “commissioning couple” and does not impose joint age criteria, it cannot be inferred that both spouses must individually satisfy age limits in all circumstances [Paras 21–23, 29–30]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference – Court found no legal error or perversity in Single Judge’s interpretation – Appellate Court upheld reasoning that statute must not be interpreted to produce inequitable or absurd results – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 31]

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Married woman held entitled to undergo ART procedure using donor sperm if within age limit under Section 21(g)(i) – No illegality found in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Criminal Law – Sections 353 and 354 IPC - Assault on Public Servant – Outraging Modesty – Acquittal Upheld – Accused allegedly obstructed traffic while drunk, assaulted a Home Guard (PW.1), and outraged the modesty of his mother (PW.2) – Sessions Court found that independent witnesses (PWs.3 to 9) turned hostile – Observation report and seizure of torn clothes lacked credibility – Accused 3 and 4’s identity not established – No test identification parade held – Held: Evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 uncorroborated – No intent (mens rea) shown to outrage modesty – No proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15–23, 27–31]

Evidence Law – Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Gaps – Key prosecution witnesses denied knowledge of incident or signing observation reports – No diary entries recording initial complaint or follow-up – Sessions Court found investigation perfunctory and evidence insufficient – Held: Trial Court rightly disbelieved evidence that lacked corroboration – Presumption of innocence rightly extended to accused [Paras 15–19, 29–31]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellate Standards – Appellate Court must defer to Trial Court’s findings unless conclusions are perverse or manifestly illegal – Trial Court’s reasoning found to be sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence – No compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Held: Even if two views possible, view favouring accused must prevail – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–14, 32–36]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal in Sessions Case No. 262 of 2005 confirmed – No interference warranted.

Service Law – Pension Revision – Inclusion of Special Pay – Tribunal directed that Special Pay be treated as part of Basic Pay for fixation of revised pay and pension – Tribunal relied on dismissal of SLP No. 18368/1995 and earlier precedents – Petitioners challenged direction contending excessive interest and delay of 11 years in filing OA – Held: Delay in filing OA cannot be raised at this stage as the Tribunal decided the matter on merits – Tribunal rightly followed binding precedent – No legal infirmity found in impugned order [Paras 2–6]

Interest on Arrears – Tribunal awarded 9% interest on delayed pension and arrears from the date of eligibility as per Annexure A4 – Petitioners sought waiver or reduction of interest citing compliance except for interest payment – Court held that the beneficiaries were mostly aged pensioners with serious health concerns and entitled to compensation for delay – No grounds to interfere with Tribunal’s direction on interest – Interest to be paid within three months [Paras 3, 4, 6, 7]

Article 227 – Judicial Review – High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 where Tribunal acted within jurisdiction, followed binding judgment, and granted reliefs in accordance with law – Petition dismissed for lack of merit [Paras 6–7]

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Petitioners directed to pay interest at 9% within three months as directed by Tribunal – No order as to costs.

Property Law – Mutation – Supreme Court Judgment Recognizing Ownership – Municipal Records to Reflect Non-Thika Status – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner purchased property via registered deed and obtained amalgamation order – Property mutated in its favour in 2008 – Thika Controller later declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenants – This was challenged and ultimately reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022, confirming that the premises was not Thika – Respondent Corporation’s reliance on Thika Controller’s order to alter mutation entry was held unlawful – Held: Municipal records must be corrected to show Petitioner as owner and remove Thika classification – Respondents’ civil claim for adverse possession is pending and will not affect current ownership mutation [Paras 1, 8–10, 27–37]

Municipal Law – Scope of Mutation – Title Dispute Not to Be Decided – Mutation Based on Lawful Ownership Recognized by Supreme Court – Corporation argued it cannot determine title – High Court held that where ownership is already determined by the Supreme Court, Corporation is bound to act accordingly – Pending civil litigation on adverse possession does not preclude mutation in favour of Petitioner as rightful owner – Corporation directed to act in compliance with Supreme Court judgment [Paras 18, 28, 32, 36]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Alternate Remedy Not a Bar Where Supreme Court Judgment Ignored – Despite availability of alternate statutory mechanism under KMC Taxation Rules, High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 as municipal authority failed to act on Supreme Court’s final judgment – Held: Inaction despite final adjudication of title and property classification justifies writ remedy [Paras 18, 21, 35]

Tenancy Law – Thika Tenancy – Claim Rejected by Supreme Court – Mutation Based on Thika Tenancy Set Aside – Property Declared Non-Thika – Thika Controller had declared respondents’ predecessor as Thika tenant – Supreme Court conclusively ruled that property is not Thika – Held: All entries treating property as Thika and mutation in favour of private respondents based on Thika status are illegal – Property to be recorded as non-Thika [Paras 6–7, 28–30]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent Corporation directed to:

(i) Record the property as a non-Thika premises

(ii) Restore mutation in the name of the Petitioner as lawful owner

(iii) Give effect to any civil court decree in favour of private respondents, if passed in future [Paras 36–37]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Partition Suit – Petitioners sought rejection of plaint as hopelessly time-barred, citing mutation entry of 1976 which allegedly recorded partition of ancestral property – Plaintiffs claimed they had no knowledge or consent to such partition and alleged fraudulent mutation – Held: Determination of limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence – Rejection of plaint at threshold unwarranted.

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Triable Issue – Court observed that limitation in such partition and inheritance disputes depends on when plaintiffs gained knowledge of the impugned acts – Referred to Supreme Court rulings affirming that such questions cannot be decided at preliminary stage – Held: Plaint must be read as a whole, and date of knowledge pleaded must be accepted at face value for Order 7 Rule 11 application.

Partition – Continuous Cause of Action – Plaint disclosed a valid cause of action arising out of disputed entry No. 5376 – Claim for lawful partition and declaration of ancestral property rights not barred on face of plaint – Mutation entry alone cannot conclusively determine title – Held: Partition suits are governed by continuous cause of action doctrine, suit maintainable.

Decision:

Civil Revision Application dismissed – Trial court order refusing to reject plaint upheld – Interim relief vacated – Notice discharged.

Trademark Infringement – Interim Relief – Likelihood of Confusion – Modified Injunction – Appellant’s restaurant name "GULSHAN-E-KARIM" found to infringe respondent’s registered mark "KARIM" used since 1913 – Respondent held to have established prima facie case of infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act – Use of “KARIM” as dominant part of both marks considered likely to cause initial interest confusion among consumers – Commercial Court’s interim injunction upheld in principle – However, complete restraint modified on equity grounds as appellant’s use was innocent and confined to Moradabad – Appellant allowed to continue using the mark with mandatory disclaimer distancing itself from respondent’s restaurant group – Failure to comply within six weeks to result in revival of original injunction [Paras 7.1, 11.5–12.8, 13.1–13.4, 14.1–14.5, 15.1–15.6, 16.1–16.9, 17–18].

Similarity – Dominant Part Test – Anti-Dissection Rule – Publici Juris Argument Rejected – Court holds "KARIM" is the dominant and memorable part of both the appellant’s and respondent’s marks – Phonetic and visual similarity sufficient for infringement even without side-by-side comparison – Appellant’s argument that “KARIM” is generic or publici juris rejected in light of its own trademark application and Section 31(1) presumption of validity – Anti-dissection rule held applicable only to plaintiff’s mark, not to infringer’s mark – Doctrine of dominant part upheld in infringement analysis [Paras 12.1–12.8, 13.1–13.4, 14.1–14.5].

Equity – Innocent Infringer – Modification of Injunctive Relief – Court finds appellant’s use of "GULSHAN-E-KARIM" was innocent and not intended to ride on respondent’s goodwill – Mark found to be suggestively laudatory in nature and used only locally since 2016 – Respondent’s remedy to protect brand equity adequately served by requiring appellant to display disclaimer in English and Hindi, disassociating itself from the respondent’s restaurants – Complete prohibition on appellant’s mark held disproportionate and inequitable under Order XXXIX CPC [Paras 16.1–16.9].

Acquiescence – Delay Not Fatal – Inaction Alone Not Sufficient – Respondent found to have acted with diligence upon discovering appellant’s use of the mark in 2020 – Evidence did not support continuous commercial use by appellant since 1997 – No positive act of encouragement or waiver by respondent – Legal principle from Midas Hygiene and Power Control Appliances applied to hold that mere inaction is not acquiescence – Acquiescence cannot defeat injunction in case of proven infringement [Paras 15.1–15.6].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Commercial Court’s order modified to allow continued use of “GULSHAN-E-KARIM” with mandatory disclaimer – Appellant to comply within six weeks or face reinstatement of full injunction – No order as to costs [Paras 17–18

Civil Law - Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Application Allowed Without Pleading Custody of Original – Order Set Aside – Plaintiffs sought to prove registered Will dated 17.11.1979 by secondary evidence, claiming original was with defendant – No such averment made in plaint – Application moved after closure of evidence at rebuttal stage – Trial Court allowed application – Held: No foundational pleading or timely action to justify late-stage application – Application wrongly allowed – Trial Court directed to determine admissibility and proof of Will under Evidence Act independently [Paras 1, 5–6, 9, 21–23]

Civil Procedure – Order 18 Rule 3 CPC – Scope for Rebuttal Evidence – No Automatic Right to Produce Secondary Evidence – Application to lead secondary evidence filed at rebuttal stage under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC – Held: Rule permits rebuttal evidence but does not override requirements of Sections 65–66 of Evidence Act – Application required prior foundational pleadings and timely disclosure – Delay and lack of basis rendered application untenable [Paras 10–11, 21]

Documentary Evidence – Will – Secondary Evidence – Legal Standards – Filing Application Not Mandatory Where Document Already Exhibited – Will already marked as Exhibit PW5/2 (certified copy) and Mark-G (photocopy) – One attesting witness examined as PW5 – Held: In such circumstances, no separate application under Section 65(c) required – Trial Court must evaluate evidence on merits as per settled legal standards without being influenced by application or order – Application and trial court’s order set aside [Paras 13–16, 20–23]

Judicial Discretion – Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice – Procedural Lapse Cannot Supplant Statutory Requirements – Though courts should not non-suit parties on technicalities, procedural laxity cannot override specific legal requirements under Evidence Act – Trial Court erred in allowing application based on equitable considerations without legal foundation – Held: Admissibility and probative value of the Will must be tested under law [Paras 12, 18, 22–23]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order dated 13.09.2024 permitting production of Will by secondary evidence set aside – Application dismissed – Trial Court directed to examine admissibility and proof of Will under Evidence Act on merits without being influenced by prior order [Paras 23–24]

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Eyewitness Account – Conviction Confirmed – Victim shot dead on a boat by appellant Dhanu Ghosh using a pipe gun – Other appellants instigated and facilitated the act – PW1 and PW4, brothers of the deceased, were eyewitnesses and gave consistent accounts of the incident – Post-mortem (PW7) confirmed gunshot injury from close range – Presence of multiple eyewitnesses nullifies argument of false implication – Common intention clearly established through coordinated acts and presence [Paras 10–12, 25–28, 32–35]

Evidence – Non-Recovery of Weapon – No Fatality to Prosecution – Pipe gun used in offence not recovered – Bullet also not recovered from the body – Held: Non-recovery of weapon not fatal where eyewitness testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence – Medical opinion clearly supports prosecution version of a close-range gunshot causing death [Paras 5–6, 23, 33, 36]

Criminal Trial – Eyewitness Credibility – Corroboration with Medical Evidence – Consistent Testimony – PW1 and PW4 identified appellants and described the incident with precision – PW2 (boatman) corroborated circumstances though not an eyewitness – PW3 arrived shortly after the incident and saw accused fleeing – Medical evidence (PW7) consistent with oral evidence – Cross-examination of witnesses failed to discredit them – Held: Trial Court rightly relied on ocular and medical evidence to convict [Paras 13–20, 27–31]

Criminal Law – Motive – Presence of Eyewitnesses – Motive Becomes Redundant – Defence raised plea of prior enmity and false implication – Court held that where there are trustworthy eyewitnesses, proof of motive is unnecessary – Enmity could also support motive for murder – Plea of false implication rejected [Paras 34–35]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Improper Framing of Questions – No Prejudice Shown – Appellants argued that questions under Section 313 CrPC were complex – Court found no material prejudice – No denial of fair opportunity established – Conviction not vitiated on this ground [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC affirmed – Period of detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – No interference warranted with Trial Court’s findings [Paras 37–40]

SARFAESI Act – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Fraud Pleaded Without Details – Bar Under Section 34 Ignored – Trial Court Order Set Aside – Respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit challenging SARFAESI possession proceedings by alleging fraud in relinquishment deed – Trial court granted ex parte stay against possession without considering bar of jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Held: Mere pleading of fraud without detailed particulars does not automatically confer jurisdiction on Civil Court – Trial court erred in failing to examine statutory bar or precedent – Order unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–24, 28]

Article 227 – Scope – Trial Court Failed to Examine Legal Bar – High Court Intervention Justified – Parties Relegated to Trial Court – Petitioner invoked Article 227 against ex parte proceedings and interim stay – Though High Court noted that petitioner could have sought remedy before trial court, intervention deemed appropriate as trial court’s order ignored jurisdictional bar and prior inconsistent pleadings – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication on jurisdiction and injunction after hearing both parties [Paras 25–28]

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Service Valid but Pleadings Withheld – No Illegality in Ex Parte Proceedings – Petitioner Free to Move Trial Court for Relief – Trial court proceeded ex parte after service was effected on petitioner – High Court held there was no illegality in procedural aspect – However, petitioner allowed to move appropriate application before trial court for recall or stay variation – Trial court to decide expeditiously [Paras 21, 25, 28–29]

Pleadings – Contradictory Stand – Civil Suit Alleging Fraud after Prior Writ Petition Affirming Voluntariness of Relinquishment – Relevant for Trial Court Consideration – Respondent earlier admitted in writ petition that relinquishment deed was voluntary – Subsequently challenged the same as fraudulent in civil suit – Held: Contradictory stand must be evaluated by trial court while deciding injunction and maintainability [Paras 16–17, 27]

Decision: Impugned order dated 03.03.2025 set aside – Petitioner permitted to move application before trial court – Trial court directed to decide on maintainability and injunction in view of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act and relevant precedents – Hearing to be completed expeditiously and decision on or before 24.12.2025 [Paras 28–30]