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]

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.

Education Law – Society Dispute – Rival Church Factions – Management of educational institutions disputed between Church of North India (CNI) and Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon (CIPBC) – Multiple writ petitions filed over two decades – High Court holds Registrar acted illegally in issuing directions despite status quo order – Rival claims regarding church succession not finally adjudicated – Held: Parties relegated to Civil Court to resolve foundational dispute; interim management directed [Paras 13, 20, 23–24, 27(III)]

Societies Registration Act – Registrar’s Powers – Registrar passed order directing joint operation of bank accounts by rival claimants despite subsisting court-ordered status quo – Held: Action illegal and beyond jurisdiction – Registrar cannot override High Court’s interim orders or decide disputed church succession – Impugned order set aside [Paras 13, 27(I)]

Church Governance – Merger of CIPBC with CNI – Conflicting claims regarding whether CNI is lawful successor of CIPBC – Court examines Supreme Court’s judgment in Vinod Kumar Malviya v. Maganlal Gameti, (2013) 15 SCC 394 and various High Court judgments – Finds that issue of merger remains open and disputed – Held: Dispute cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and requires civil trial [Paras 14, 20, 22–23]

Interim Measures – Court Directions – Court observes continued mismanagement and unresolved disputes over a decade – Appoints Justice Umesh Kumar (Retd.) as Court Observer – Orders joint operation of bank accounts by Principals of institutions along with District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj – Directs quarterly audits by independent Chartered Accountant – Observer empowered to seek further directions from Court [Paras 24–27(VI)]

Procedural Law – Substitution Applications – Multiple rival claimants filed applications to substitute deceased petitioner – Court finds no legal basis to entertain substitution where elections were invalid or conducted in violation of status quo – All substitution applications rejected – Petition left uncontested [Paras 6–8]

Judicial Discipline – Writ Jurisdiction Limitations – Dispute involves complex questions of fact regarding church succession and validity of internal elections – Held: Properly triable before civil court; prolonged writ proceedings have not yielded resolution – Delay harming institutional governance and prompting criminal allegations [Paras 22–24]

Principal’s Tenure – Administrative Observation – Though no retirement age is prescribed, Court notes concerns over prolonged tenure and allegations – Principal advised to disclose assets voluntarily to dispel doubts about mismanagement [Para 25–26]

Decision: All connected writ petitions disposed of – Order of Registrar dated 03.08.2022 set aside – Parties relegated to competent civil court to adjudicate core dispute of church succession and society control – Interim arrangement directed: bank accounts to be operated jointly by respective Principals, District Magistrate, and Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj – Justice Umesh Kumar (Retd.) appointed as Court Observer to oversee management, verify records, ensure audits and report to Court as needed – Registrar (Compliance) directed to take necessary steps [Paras 27–29]

Criminal Law – Section 94 BNSS – Right to Fair Trial – Electronic Evidence – Application under Section 94 BNSS seeking preservation of mobile tower location and CDR of SHO’s mobile number for specified duration prior to and after alleged contraband recovery – Trial Court rejected application – Held: Accused entitled to summon relevant electronic records necessary for defence – Denial would amount to miscarriage of justice – Preservation of CDR and tower location directed with safeguards for privacy – Petition partly allowed [Paras 1–13]

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility and Relevance – Sections 65A and 65B of Evidence Act – CDR and tower location data admissible subject to statutory conditions – Accused has right to seek such records to establish presence or absence of police at alleged location – Denial without considering necessity undermines fairness of trial [Paras 7–9]

Right to Privacy vs. Fair Trial – Balancing Competing Rights – Production of CDR may breach police officials’ privacy, but right of accused under Article 21 to fair trial outweighs – Censoring incoming/outgoing numbers directed to mitigate privacy concerns – Legislative intent of Section 94 BNSS supports access to such records when relevant to truth-finding [Paras 8–10]

Judicial Direction – Section 94 BNSS – Accused must demonstrate relevance and necessity of documents sought – Court directed service provider to preserve and produce tower location data for SHO’s mobile number during relevant time period – Trial Court to receive censored CDR details [Paras 11–12]

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Trial Court directed to summon mobile tower location and CDR (with redacted call details) of SHO’s mobile number for the specified period – Service provider to preserve data – Petition and pending applications disposed of [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal – Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal – Land Dispute – Credibility of Witnesses – Site Plan Contradictions – Improvements & Omissions – Reasonable View of Trial Court Not to be Disturbed – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 12–25].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Parameters for Interference – Supreme Court precedents reiterated – High Court may interfere only if the acquittal is perverse, based on material misreading or where only one conclusion pointing to guilt is possible – Trial court’s reasonable view must be respected [Paras 12–13].

Site Plan – Contradiction With Prosecution Theory – Site plan (Ext.PW7/C) showing existence of a 5-ft wide public footpath directly adjacent to complainant’s field – Presence of “Kuhal” before accused’s field – Improbability of prosecution story regarding need for creating passage through accused’s field – Site plan undermines prosecution’s genesis of incident [Paras 14–16].

Witness Testimony – Improvements, Omissions & Contradictions – Informant (PW1) contradictory regarding uprooting of bamboo pole – injured witness (PW6) improved version regarding threats and omitted material facts – strained relationship and pending litigations require cautious scrutiny – prosecution evidence unreliable [Paras 17–23].

Eye-witness Credibility – PW2’s presence doubtful as his name absent in FIR and in other witness versions – Trial court justified in discarding his testimony [Para 19].

Decision – Reasonable view taken by Trial Court – No perversity or misreading of evidence – Appeal dismissed – Respondents directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC/Section 481 BNSS [Paras 24–27].

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

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Arson – Conviction Upheld – Accused formed unlawful assembly and launched attack on the deceased in course of property dispute – House of deceased was set on fire and he was assaulted with lathis on vital body parts causing fatal cranio-cerebral injuries – Trial court convicted under Sections 148, 436 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 – High Court found evidence of eye-witnesses, many of them injured, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 1, 9, 13-14, 17-18]

Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Medical Corroboration – Six injured witnesses confirmed to have sustained blunt force trauma consistent with lathi assaults – Medical reports supported their presence at scene and nature of assault – Minor omissions and initial non-disclosures found not material – Credibility intact despite pendency of counter-case against them [Paras 11-14]

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem revealed depressed skull fracture, haemorrhage in brain stem and multiple antemortem injuries – Death opined to be due to cranio-cerebral trauma caused by hard and blunt weapon – Medical findings fully matched with witness account of assault – Held: Death was clearly homicidal [Para 9]

Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Applicability – Acts of setting fire, fatal assault on deceased and coordinated attack on rescuers established that unlawful assembly had common object – Specific roles attributed to each appellant – No requirement to prove individual overt act where offence committed in furtherance of common object – Vicarious liability under Section 149 attracted [Paras 13, 17]

Hostile Witnesses – Effect on Prosecution – Some prosecution witnesses turned hostile or did not support prosecution – Held: Core case established by consistent and credible testimony of injured and independent witnesses – Conviction can be sustained on basis of quality evidence despite some hostile witnesses [Para 16]

Motive – Land Dispute – Claim of accused that house belonged to them contradicted by prosecution evidence showing longstanding possession by deceased – Existence of land dispute supported motive – Presence of motive strengthens prosecution version but not essential in light of direct evidence [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants under Sections 148, 436 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC affirmed – Appeal abated against Appellant-Basudev Barik due to death – Remaining appellants directed to surrender within three weeks [Para 18]

Arbitration – Jurisdiction Challenge – Section 16 A&C Act – Arbitrator appointed with party consent under Section 11 – Petitioner raised preliminary objection claiming dispute was non-arbitrable as it involved dissolution and asset distribution of a firm "at will" – Held: The existence of an arbitration clause and disputed dissolution status made arbitral jurisdiction tenable – Application rightly rejected by Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 6, 9–10]

Non-Arbitrable Subject – Winding Up of Partnership Firm – Petitioner argued that post-dissolution, dispute involved rights in rem, requiring court-supervised winding up – Held: In absence of a concluded dissolution or involvement of third-party claims, dispute over distribution of assets remains inter se between partners – It is an action in personam and thus arbitrable [Paras 5.2, 9.1]

Maintainability – Writ Petition Against Arbitral Order – Court held petition under Article 226/227 challenging rejection of jurisdictional plea is not maintainable except in exceptional rarity – Interference permitted only when order is perverse or passed in bad faith – Mere disagreement with arbitral ruling does not suffice [Paras 7.1, 8, 12–13]

Partnership Deed – Interpretation of Arbitration Clause – Clauses 12 and 13 considered – Clause 12 provided for arbitration of disputes relating to business or deed – Court found dispute within ambit of Clause 12 and not falling under exclusionary Clause 13, as the existence and dissolution of the firm were still contested [Paras 9–9.1]

Judicial Interference – Arbitration Framework – Strong reaffirmation of minimal interference principle under Section 5 A&C Act – Citing recent and binding SC precedents including Serosoft Solutions, Bhaven Construction, and SBI General Insurance – Court emphasized the legislative mandate of autonomy and efficiency in arbitral proceedings [Paras 5.4, 7.1, 8]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Held not maintainable under Articles 226/227 – No interference warranted with order of Arbitral Tribunal rejecting Section 16 application – All contentions on merits including jurisdictional objections left open for consideration under Section 34 A&C Act post award [Paras 13–14]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction Barred by Special Statute – Suit involving investor’s grievance against registered stockbroker for alleged non-delivery of shares and wrongful debit – Held: SEBI Act, 1992 provides a complete adjudicatory mechanism, including appointment of adjudicating officer under Section 15-I – Civil Court jurisdiction expressly barred under Section 15-Y – Plaintiff’s remedy lies under the special statute – Trial court erred in dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Impugned order set aside and plaint rejected [Paras 2, 10–15, 19]

Securities Law – SEBI Act – Investor Grievance – Default by Stockbroker – Suit filed for mandatory injunction directing stockbroker to deliver specific shares and reverse debited amount – Held: Matters relating to stockbroker default fall squarely within scope of Sections 15-F and 15-C of SEBI Act – Adjudication must be done by SEBI-appointed officer, not civil court – Civil court lacks jurisdiction in view of statutory bar under Section 15-Y [Paras 14–15]

Specific Relief – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Not Maintainable Where Alternative Remedy Exists – Plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction instead of recovery – Held: When efficacious statutory and legal remedies are available under SEBI Act or by filing suit for recovery with ad valorem court fee, mandatory injunction cannot be granted – Suit hit by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act – Apparent attempt to evade court fee liability [Paras 16–17]

Res Judicata and Abuse of Process – Second Application under Order 7 Rule 11 – Earlier rejection by trial court set aside by High Court with direction to decide afresh – Trial court failed to appreciate binding nature of earlier order – Repetition of error renders impugned order unsustainable [Paras 4, 18]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.02.2017 set aside – Suit of the plaintiff/respondent rejected as barred by law – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Para 19–20]