Civil Writ - Rejection of Appointment - Public Recruitment – Biometric Mismatch – Candidate’s Identity Not Disputed – Rejection Unwarranted – Petitioners' biometric data failed to match at exam exit/document verification but matched at entry – LIC rejected appointment solely based on TCS biometric report – Held: Identity not disputed, no fraud alleged – Biometric mismatch cannot override other reliable ID proofs [Paras 4–6, 11–12, 22].

Natural Justice – Non-furnishing of Adverse Report – Violation of Fair Hearing – TCS biometric report not supplied to petitioners despite forming basis for rejection – Held: LIC’s failure to share report breached natural justice, prejudiced petitioners' rights – Report not filed in Court either [Paras 12, 16].

Necessary Party – Role of Verification Agency – TCS Not Indispensable – LIC argued non-joinder of TCS – Held: TCS acted as agent executing LIC’s directions – Petition maintainable without impleading TCS – Responsibility remained with LIC [Paras 7, 15].

Validity of Recruitment Clause – Finality to Biometric Results – Clause Unreasonable – Held: Clause making biometric decision “binding” on candidates is arbitrary – Technology cannot trump identity proofs – Person’s legal rights cannot depend solely on machine recognition [Paras 17–21].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Appointment Ordered – Court quashed LIC’s rejection order – Directed LIC to verify petitioners’ identity using official documents and issue appointment within four weeks – Consequential benefits allowed except monetary arrears [Paras 22–24].

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement – Similarity in Visual and Phonetic Structure – Permanent Injunction Granted – Defendant used the mark ‘BRIMESTONE’ for rubber products which was found deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known registered mark ‘BRIDGESTONE’ – Defendant replaced only two letters while retaining key phonetic and visual elements – Infringement and passing off established [Paras 31–37].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Non-Appearance of Defendant – Evidence Unchallenged – Defendant failed to file written statement or cross-examine plaintiff’s witness – Court deemed averments and documents admitted – Local Commissioner’s seizure report further corroborated infringing conduct [Paras 19–27, 42].

Damages – Quantified Based on Investigator & LC Reports – ₹34.41 Lakhs Awarded – Plaintiff established illegal profits from 3 years of sales using counterfeit mark – Court adopted conservative one-and-a-half-year base and 20% profit margin for “rough and ready” calculation – Damages awarded under category of repeated knowing infringer [Paras 43–49].

Costs – Actual Costs Recoverable – Bill of Costs for ₹14.38 Lakhs Submitted – Plaintiff directed to approach Taxation Officer for determination – Defendant’s evasion cannot shield it from compensatory consequences [Paras 50–53].

Decision: Suit decreed – Permanent injunction granted restraining use of ‘BRIMESTONE’ or any mark deceptively similar to ‘BRIDGESTONE’ – ₹34,41,240/- compensatory damages awarded – Costs to be determined by Taxation Officer – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 54–59].

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Revision against conviction - Appreciation of Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Revision filed challenging conviction – Held: Evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 found unreliable as their presence at accident site was doubtful – Contradictions between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony – Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report did not corroborate prosecution’s version – No proper identification of petitioner as driver – Accident possibly caused by improper riding of two-wheeler by P.W.1 – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 2-8].

Rashness and Criminal Negligence – Requirement of Proof – Concept Explained – Mere occurrence of accident or death not sufficient to infer criminal rashness or negligence – Necessity of proving reckless or grossly negligent conduct – Prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence to the required degree – Petitioner entitled to acquittal [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of all charges – Legal Aid Counsel appreciated for efforts [Paras 9-11].

Matrimonial Law – Recovery of Istridhan - Patrimony and Gold Ornaments – Entrustment Not Proved – Claim Dismissed – Wife alleged entrustment of 50 sovereigns of gold and ₹3 lakhs at the time of marriage – Court found inconsistencies and contradictions in pleadings and oral evidence – Delay of 8 years in raising claim also viewed as improbable – Held: No sufficient material to overturn Family Court's finding rejecting claim for patrimony and gold [Paras 6-12].

Maintenance – Financial Capacity of Husband Established – Award of ₹10,000 per Month Upheld – Husband claimed petitioner had income from running a shop, but no evidence was produced – Documents like bio-data and wedding invitation indicated respondent's affluent background – Held: Maintenance at ₹10,000/month is reasonable – No interference warranted [Paras 13-14].

Arrears of Maintenance – Interest Awarded – Interim maintenance ordered during pendency of appeal was not paid – Court ordered that all arrears shall bear interest at 9% per annum – Held: Petitioner entitled to realise maintenance arrears with interest in accordance with law [Para 15].

Final Decision – Appeals Disposed – Family Court judgment affirmed – Wife allowed to recover arrears of maintenance with 9% interest – No other relief granted [Para 15].

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement – Civil Servant Deputed to Army Postal Service – Retirement While on Deputation – Denied – The petitioner, holding a civil post with the Department of Posts and later commissioned in APS, sought voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A without repatriation – Tribunal held and High Court affirmed that such retirement from APS without repatriation was impermissible – Held: As petitioner had not completed 30 years of service required under Rule 48, he was not eligible for benefits under Rule 67 or relevant OMs – Repatriation to parent department was mandatory prior to voluntary retirement [Paras 23-27].

Interpretation of Pension Rules – Retirement Under Rule 48-A Not Covered by DOT OM – Claim Rejected – Court held that Rule 67 read with DOT OM dated 05.09.1989 applied only to cases falling under Rule 48 (i.e., on completion of 30 years of service) – Petitioner, having completed only 28 years of service, was not eligible under the said OM – Held: Retirement did not satisfy conditions for direct pension authorization by APS as borrowing department [Paras 25-27].

Jurisdiction and Departmental Authority – Competent Authority to Release Pension – Department of Posts Identified – Although initially permitted to retire directly from APS, subsequent clarification by Army and Posts authorities corrected the procedural error – Held: Department of Posts, being the cadre-controlling authority, was responsible for disbursing retiral benefits [Paras 18-20, 27].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court declined to interfere with Tribunal’s findings – Petitioner not entitled to claim ex-serviceman status or ECHS benefits – Ordered: Writ petition dismissed with no costs [Paras 27-28].

Civil Law – Commercial Suit - Jurisdiction – Commercial Suit Refiled Before Civil Court – Misuse of Procedure – Plaint Returned – Plaintiffs withdrew earlier commercial suit without liberty and refiled same cause before civil court adding non-related parties – Court held this was a deliberate attempt to bypass Commercial Courts Act – Only parties receiving notices could seek relief – Civil court lacked jurisdiction – Impugned order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC set aside [Paras 3–11]. 
 
Misleading Citations – City Civil Judge Relied on Non-Existent SC Judgments – Serious Concern Raised – Learned Judge cited fictitious Supreme Court decisions to justify jurisdiction 
– Neither party referred such judgments – Matter referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate action against judicial officer [Paras 5, 10, 12]. 
 
Remand – Order VII Rule 10A CPC – Procedural Opportunity Granted – Plaint returned to plaintiffs but with liberty to file application under Order VII Rule 10A(2) – Direction to parties to appear before trial court for further proceedings – If no application filed, plaint to be returned [Para 11]. 
 
Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Plaint returned for lack of jurisdiction – Matter remitted for compliance under Order VII Rule 10A(2) CPC – Copy of order to be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice for inquiry into judicial conduct [Paras 11–12]. 
 

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Husband's Disinterest in Marital Relationship – Divorce Granted - The wife alleged that the husband was indifferent towards family life, abstained from conjugal relations, and was engrossed in superstitious and spiritual practices – Evidence proved that despite earlier reconciliation, the husband continued neglecting the petitioner’s marital rights, causing severe mental trauma – The Court held that persistent neglect, emotional abandonment, and forced adherence to superstitious practices amounted to cruelty – Decree of divorce upheld [Paras 6-15]. 
 
Mental Cruelty – Assessment Requires Flexible Approach - Relying on Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni [AIR 2023 SC 4186] and Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila.P [2025 (2) KHC 33], the Court reiterated that mental cruelty is subjective and must be assessed case-wise – Courts must adopt a liberal and contextsensitive approach, especially where the wife seeks divorce due to mental agony caused by neglect or deprivation of conjugal rights [Paras 12-14]. 
 
Family Court Finding – No Interference Warranted – Marriage Irretrievably Broken - The Family Court rightly concluded that the marriage was irretrievably broken and the parties lacked mutual trust and affection – The High Court found no perversity or misapplication of law and refused to interfere with the decree of divorce [Para 15]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Dismissed - Matrimonial Appeal dismissed – Divorce granted by Family Court sustained – Parties directed to bear their own costs [Para 15]. 
 

Criminal Law - Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS – Seeking Direction for Fair Investigation – No Right of Accused to Dictate Manner or Agency – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought direction to conduct investigation in a free and fair manner and impliedly questioned investigating agency – Supreme Court precedents cited to hold that an accused has no right to dictate how an investigation should proceed or which agency should conduct it – Held: Accused cannot claim pre-audience nor request court to intervene in the manner of investigation [Paras 3–6].

Court-Monitored Investigation – Distinction Between Monitoring and Supervision – Not Permissible by Trial Court – Court relied on Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532 to emphasize that courts may only monitor, not supervise, investigations – Supervision amounts to influencing the process and undermines fair trial – Held: Courts may intervene only in rare, exceptional circumstances and not at behest of accused [Paras 7–8].

Supreme Court Precedents – Investigation Cannot Be Driven by Accused – Consistent Judicial View – Cited judgments including Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753 and Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 4 SCC 626 affirm that the accused has no legal right to influence the investigation or seek its transfer – Held: Petition misconceived and against settled law [Paras 5–6].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Court found no grounds to interfere with the investigation or to issue directions for change of investigating agency – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 9].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Eyewitness Testimony by Relative – Credibility Upheld – Conviction Confirmed - PW-10 Ram Pal, brother-in-law of the deceased, was an eyewitness – Court held that being a related witness does not by itself make him untrustworthy – His presence at the scene was natural, his testimony consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Ocular version matched with post-mortem findings [Paras 20, 24].

FIR Delay – No Prejudice Caused – Explained and Justified - FIR was registered within a reasonable time after the occurrence between 8:15-8:45 a.m.; statement recorded by 11:00 a.m., and special report reached Magistrate by 4:00 p.m. – Court held that delay was not inordinate and did not weaken prosecution case [Para 21].

Defence Argument – Bloodstained Clothes Not Seized – Not Sufficient to Discredit Witness – Court held that non-seizure of bloodstained clothes of eyewitness Ram Pal was an investigative lapse – But it did not negate his presence or the credibility of his testimony – Eyewitness account supported by medical and ballistic evidence [Para 23].

Medical vs Ocular Evidence – No Contradiction Found – Court held that minor discrepancies in wound description were not fatal – Post-mortem report corroborated injuries caused by gunshot – No inconsistency between medical opinion and eyewitness account [Para 24].

Motive – Prior Enmity Well Established – Conviction Justified - Prosecution established motive of revenge as deceased had been a co-accused in the murder case of Amar Singh’s brother – FIR records confirmed Ram Partap (related to deceased) was convicted for murder of Om Parkash (brother of Amar Singh) – Motive further corroborated credibility of prosecution story [Para 25].

Ballistic Evidence – Pistol Recovery and Forensic Match – Weapon Linked to Crime - Recovered country-made pistol was found to be functional – FSL confirmed fired cartridge and lead slug matched the weapon – Forensic evidence conclusively connected Amar Singh with the firearm used in the murder [Para 26].

Decision – Conviction Upheld – Life Imprisonment and Arms Act Sentence Affirmed – High Court found evidence of guilt overwhelming – Appeal dismissed – Appellant directed to surrender and serve remaining sentence [Para 27].