Service Law - Appointment to Reserved Post  – Scheduled Caste Reservation – Eligibility versus Suitability – Arbitrary Rejection – Petitioner Fully Qualified – The petitioner, an Associate Professor with over 32 years of experience and an extensive publication record, applied for the post of Professor reserved for SC category – He was the only candidate who attended the interview – Despite meeting all UGC eligibility standards, he was declared ‘not suitable’ without reasons – Held: The selection process lacked transparency, was arbitrary, and indicated a pattern of deliberate exclusion of SC candidates – Petitioner’s academic and research achievements far exceeded prescribed norms and warranted appointment [Paras 1–10, 43–45].

Selection Committee – Procedural Impropriety – Post-Facto Authentication – Void Process – The Selection Committee consisted of nine members, but only five attended the interview – Two additional members who did not attend were asked to authenticate the decision three months later – Held: Their endorsement without participating in the interview was invalid and made the selection process vitiated – Such conduct amounted to mala fide action and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny [Paras 44–47].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 16 Violation – Discrimination Established – The post had remained unfilled since the Centre’s inception in 2009, despite being reserved – Repeated non-appointment of SC candidates showed deliberate denial of opportunity – Held: Rejection of the petitioner was a breach of the right to equality in public employment under Articles 16(1) and 16(2) – The rationale of ‘none found suitable’ was a smokescreen to subvert constitutional policy [Paras 47–50].

Judicial Review – Power to Interfere – Court’s Role When Selection is Arbitrary – Held: While courts generally refrain from interfering with expert opinion of selection committees, this case justified intervention due to patent illegality, arbitrariness, and mala fides – The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the selection and direct appointment of the petitioner with full service and monetary benefits from 18.12.2023 [Paras 49–56].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Appointment Directed – The Court held that the petitioner was unjustly denied appointment despite fulfilling all qualifications and being the only candidate interviewed – The order rejecting his candidature as “not suitable” was declared arbitrary, opaque, and mala fide – The Court quashed the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 and directed the University to appoint the petitioner within two weeks with retrospective service and monetary benefits from the said date [Paras 55–57].

Service Law – Recruitment by Transfer – Eligibility and Probation Requirement – Review Dismissed – Petitioners sought review of a common judgment holding that only candidates with declared probation were eligible for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Professor – Petitioners argued that both Health Services and Medical Education Departments constituted feeder categories and that probation should not have been the sole criterion – Held: Contentions were already considered and rejected in the original judgment – No error apparent on the face of the record [Paras 1–6, 12].

Judicial Review – Scope of Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Limited Reappreciation Not Permissible – The Court reiterated that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue settled contentions – Cited precedents including Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi and Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Absence of a manifest error or self-evident mistake precludes exercise of review jurisdiction [Paras 7–11].

Recruitment Mode – By Transfer vs Direct Recruitment – Notification Valid – Petitioners contended that recruitment should have been by direct entry since the vacancy was substantive – Held: Appointment by transfer in accordance with Special Rules was valid – Rule 5 of KS&SSR governs ratio, not recruitment mode – Rule 2(13) rightly applied to define “appointment by transfer” [Paras 5, 13].

Decision – Review Petitions Dismissed – The Court held that no grounds were made out under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to review the earlier judgment – Alleged legal errors involved two possible interpretations and required elaborate reasoning – Hence, not errors apparent on the face of record – Review dismissed with no fresh directions issued [Paras 14].

Civil Law - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Delay Condonation – Exorbitant Delay – Lack of Bona Fides – Delay Not Condoned – The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 4864 days in filing a revision petition against the dismissal of an application to implead legal heirs in a suit for specific performance – The only ground cited was ignorance of earlier proceedings due to residing at her matrimonial home – Held: No sufficient cause was made out – Delay attributed to a casual and negligent approach without due diligence or urgency to pursue legal remedy [Paras 2–6].

Specific Performance Suit – Legal Heirs and Procedural Diligence – Dismissal for Delay – Earlier revision filed by co-legal heirs was dismissed in 2020 for non-compliance of court directions – The petitioner, despite knowledge, did not act promptly even post-dismissal – Held: The conduct revealed a callous and indifferent attitude – Relief in equity-based suits like specific performance demands timely, diligent participation – Petition dismissed [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court held that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory and indicative of negligence – Delay of over 13 years (4864 days) was not condonable in the absence of genuine reasons – The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the unnumbered revision suit stood dismissed without costs [Para 6].

Criminal Law - Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS - Sections 66(B), 65(A), 81, 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Appeal Against Acquittal – Alleged Possession of Liquor Without Permit – Acquittal Confirmed – Accused found with bottles allegedly containing English liquor – Investigating officer failed to send seized bottles for FSL analysis – No sample drawn or tested to establish contents as prohibited liquor – Held: Prosecution failed to prove nature of substance seized – Mandatory procedures not followed – Acquittal by Trial Court justified [Paras 9(i)-(v)].

NDPS Offence – Recovery of Marijuana – Non-Compliance of Sections 42 and 57 – Accused No.2 Deceased – No Proof of Ownership of Farm – Trial Court Rightly Disbelieved Prosecution – Held: Seizure procedure flawed – Investigating Officer did not ascertain ownership of farm or comply with procedural mandates of NDPS Act – No interference called for with acquittal [Paras 9(vi)].

Scope of Appellate Review – Acquittal Appeals – No Perverse or Arbitrary Findings – Reappreciation of Evidence Permissible – Held: As per SC decisions, appellate court must respect acquittal unless Trial Court’s view is manifestly erroneous or implausible – Present case does not warrant reversal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Decision – Prosecution Failed to Establish Offences Under Prohibition Act and NDPS Act – Acquittal Based on Justifiable Grounds – No Interference Warranted – Held: Findings of Trial Court are reasoned, supported by record, and free from legal infirmity – Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Intellectual Property Law – Trademark Infringement – Use of Registered Trademark by Intermediary – Dispute over IndiaMART listing of 'PUMA' as a drop-down option – PUMA SE (PSE) alleged counterfeit listings of its trademarked products on IndiaMART – Single Judge restrained IndiaMART from providing 'PUMA' as an option and ordered takedown of infringing listings – Division Bench analyzed extent of 'use' under Section 29 TM Act and safe harbour under Section 79 IT Act – Held: Drop-down listing alone not infringing if reasonable diligence followed – Injunction lifted for drop-down use, but takedown obligation upheld [Paras 1–4, 49–59, 94–96].

Trademark Use – Section 29 TM Act – Interpretation – Court held that listing 'PUMA' in seller registration drop-down constitutes "use" of trademark under Sections 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c)(i) of TM Act – However, such use, by itself, does not show dishonest practice unless it facilitates counterfeit trade or misleads consumers – Use not automatically actionable unless shown to unfairly benefit from or damage trademark's distinctiveness [Paras 21–23, 27, 63–66, 69–70].

Safe Harbour Protection – Section 79 IT Act – Applicability to IndiaMART – Court distinguished IndiaMART from traditional e-commerce platforms like Amazon – IndiaMART operates as B2B listing service akin to Yellow Pages – Prima facie found to meet intermediary criteria under Section 2(1)(w) IT Act – Held: Section 79(1) protection applies unless intermediary conspires or fails to act on specific knowledge of infringement – Absence of proactive conspiracy or inducement protected IndiaMART [Paras 58, 77–80, 81–83, 90–93].

Due Diligence Obligations – Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) IT Rules 2021 – Court found that IndiaMART must ensure sellers acknowledge IP compliance obligations prominently during registration – Sellers re-listing after takedown without scrutiny would breach due diligence standards – Court emphasized need for visible undertakings and a robust takedown policy to retain intermediary protection [Paras 84–89, 92].

Doctrine of Exhaustion and Descriptive Use – Court rejected overbroad interpretation of Section 29(4) TM Act as applied by Single Judge – Noted that mere drop-down use describing brand, without intent to mislead or misappropriate goodwill, could fall under permissible descriptive use – Emphasized that infringement must involve confusion or dilution beyond identification of category [Paras 36(b), 41, 64–67].

Distinction from Google LLC v. DRS Logistics and Amazon Case – Court found Single Judge’s reliance on Google LLC decision distinguishable – Google ad program involved adword manipulation, unlike IndiaMART’s passive drop-down menu – Amazon case involved brand ownership and product sale by platform itself, unlike IndiaMART’s third-party listing structure [Paras 60, 73–74].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Injunction restraining drop-down menu usage of 'PUMA' lifted – IndiaMART directed to maintain active takedown mechanism for counterfeit listings and ensure compliance with due diligence requirements – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 94–96].

Criminal Law - Dishonor of Cheque – Acquittal by Trial Court – Opportunity to Examine Bank Manager Denied – Matter Remanded – The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the NI Act which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the dishonor memos (Exts.P2 and P3) did not contain the cheque number – Held: As per Section 146 of the NI Act, bank’s dishonor memo is prima facie evidence, but it must contain the cheque number and related details – Trial Court erred in denying the complainant’s request to examine the Bank Manager to prove this crucial fact – Acquittal set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal after granting the complainant opportunity to examine the Bank Manager [Paras 6, 9-13].

Section 146 NI Act – Presumption of Dishonor – Applicability Explained – The Court clarified that while Section 146 creates a presumption based on the bank’s slip or memo, the memo must contain specific details like the cheque number, date, and amount to be effective evidence – In absence of these details, oral evidence through the Bank Manager is necessary to prove dishonor – Failure to permit such evidence amounts to violation of fair trial principles [Paras 9-11].

Natural Justice – Denial of Right to Adduce Evidence – Judgment Unsustainable – The dismissal of the complainant’s petition to summon the Bank Manager deprived him of a fair opportunity to prove his case – Held: Such denial vitiates the trial – Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and remand the case for proper adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Judgment of Acquittal Set Aside – Matter Remanded – The judgment dated 06.02.2014 in S.T. No.10 of 2012 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Karunagappally is set aside – The complainant is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.07.2025 at 11:00 a.m. – Trial Court to dispose of the case afresh after permitting examination of the Bank Manager – Appeal allowed [Paras 13].

Criminal Law  – Prevention of Corruption Act – Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Demand Not Proved – Acquittal Upheld – The complainant alleged that the accused, a public servant, demanded ₹1,000 to facilitate processing of a government loan – Trap arranged and accused allegedly caught with the bribe amount – Trial Court acquitted the accused on ground that demand was not proved – Held: Complainant admitted in cross-examination that no bribe was demanded and loan papers were already forwarded – In absence of proof of demand, presumption under Section 20 does not apply – Recovery alone insufficient – Acquittal justified [Paras 11-14].

Presumption under Section 20 – Legal Presumption Conditional on Proof of Demand – Not Applicable – The Court reiterated that presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after prosecution proves foundational facts including demand – As demand not proved, statutory presumption could not be invoked – Held: No error in Trial Court’s reasoning [Paras 13, 14].

Independent Witnesses – Non-examination Weakens Prosecution – Procedural Lapses – The prosecution failed to examine available independent witnesses during trap proceedings including a police constable – Trial Court rightly considered this lapse while assessing credibility – Held: Absence of corroborative testimony casts doubt on fairness of trap [Para 15].

Scope of Interference in Acquittal Appeals – Standard of Review – No Perversity Found – Appellate Court reiterated that unless the Trial Court’s view is perverse or implausible, acquittal cannot be overturned – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and based on sound reasoning – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Demand Not Proved – Recovery Irrelevant Without Demand – Acquittal Sustained – Held: Prosecution failed to establish core ingredients of offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Appeal dismissed and acquittal confirmed [Para 19].

Muslim Law - Wakf Administration – Direct Management – Mismanagement and Irregularities – Resolution Upheld - Petitioner, elected as President/Mutawalli, challenged the Wakf Board’s resolution dated 11.05.2022 assuming direct management of the mosque – Allegations included non-maintenance of accounts, unauthorized construction of minara, and fund misappropriation – Held: Material on record showed persistent irregularities; assumption of management justified [Paras 6–14].

Natural Justice – Enquiry Conducted – No Violation Shown – Audit Report Access Not Essential - Petitioner contended denial of opportunity to peruse audit report – Court held that petitioner was given due notice and participated in enquiry – Audit-based action taken under Section 48 of Wakf Act, no mandatory requirement to supply copy unless specifically sought – No breach of natural justice found [Paras 12–16].

Mutawalli’s Responsibility – Cannot Deny Liability – Mismanagement During Tenure - Petitioner attempted to blame past administrations – Held: As Mutawalli from 10.11.2019 to 09.11.2022, petitioner bore duty to rectify and report financial irregularities – Continued payment for minara construction after takeover shows defiance – Special Resolution of 27.07.2022 removing committee went unchallenged [Paras 7–11].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Tribunal's Order Affirmed - The Waqf Tribunal's order upheld – Resolution assuming direct management deemed valid – Petition and connected CMPs dismissed without costs [Paras 17–18].

Land Acquisition – Challenge to Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquisition Upheld – Petitioners contended that the term “Multipurpose Scheme” was vague and not a valid public purpose under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Court held that "Multipurpose Scheme No.10" constituted a valid and specific purpose and satisfied the statutory requirements – Notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 were properly issued and published – Held: No vagueness or illegality in purpose of acquisition [Paras 14(i), 37-39, 54].

Opportunity of Hearing – Section 5A of the Act of 1894 – Compliance Found – Petitioners alleged denial of personal hearing under Section 5A – Court found that individual notices were served, and legal representatives appeared via advocates – Dispatch records, appearance registers, and Vakalatnamas produced – Held: Requirement of personal hearing and consideration of objections was duly complied with [Paras 14(ii), 29-30, 43-44].

Limitation – Declaration under Section 6 and Award under Section 11 – Proceedings Not Lapsed – Petitioners alleged that declaration under Section 6 was beyond one year from notification under Section 4 and that award under Section 11 was passed beyond two-year period – Court held that Section 6 declaration and Section 11 award were issued within prescribed timeframes from last publication dates – Held: No lapse under Sections 6 or 11A [Paras 14(iii)-(v), 31-32, 41-42].

Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 – Inapplicability – Petitioners argued deemed lapse due to non-payment of compensation – Court held Section 24(2) applies only where award predates 01.01.2009 by five years – Award in this case passed on 22.10.2009 – Held: Section 24(2) not applicable and compensation either paid or deposited with competent authority [Paras 14(vi)-(vii), 45-46].

Notice under Section 9 – Directory Nature – Non-compliance Not Fatal – Petitioners challenged proceedings due to alleged non-service of Section 9 notices – Court held that even if notices were not individually served, provision is directory in nature – Held: Absence of notice under Section 9 does not vitiate acquisition [Paras 14(iv), 48-49].

Discrimination and Equitable Treatment – Allegation Unsubstantiated – Petitioners alleged discriminatory treatment in exclusion of some lands – Court held no factual foundation or evidence to support claims – Held: No discrimination made out in land selection [Paras 14(viii)-(ix), 47].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petitions Filed Post-Award – Challenge Barred – Writ Petitions were filed in 2012, years after award passed in 2009 – Court held challenge was delayed without sufficient explanation and barred by laches – Held: Petitions not maintainable on account of delay [Paras 16(i), 50-53].

Final Decision – Acquisition Proceedings Found Legal and Valid – No Constitutional or Procedural Violation – The High Court held that acquisition proceedings were carried out in accordance with law, with compliance to statutory mandates and procedural safeguards – No grounds made out for interference – Held: All intra-court appeals dismissed [Paras 55-57].