Police Service – Dismissal for Absence – Prolonged unauthorized absence from duty – Plaintiff/constable dismissed for remaining absent from duty for extended periods – Departmental inquiry conducted, orders of dismissal confirmed by appellate and revisional authorities – Courts below upheld dismissal, noting absence of valid medical justification and procedural adherence – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Procedural Compliance – Departmental Inquiry – Plaintiff’s claims of procedural lapses in departmental inquiry rejected – Inquiry and subsequent orders found to be in accordance with Punjab Police Rules – Courts emphasized the disciplined nature of police service and necessity for strict adherence to rules – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference – High Court’s jurisdiction in reviewing disciplinary actions – Upheld findings of lower courts absent wanton or arbitrary action by authorities – Precedent from Supreme Court and High Court cited to affirm dismissal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court affirmed – Orders of dismissal from service upheld [Paras 19-20].

Civil Law - Trademark Dispute – Objection to Jurisdiction – Commercial Courts Act Interpretation – Dismissed - Defendant challenged jurisdiction of Trial Court to hear trademark injunction suit on grounds that it should lie before Commercial Court due to nature of IPR dispute – Court held that Commercial Court jurisdiction only arises if suit involves a commercial dispute and the specified value is ₹3 lakhs or more – In absence of such valuation, Trial Court can proceed – Held: No presumption that all IPR cases must be valued above ₹3 lakhs; suit not barred by law [Paras 3–10, 15–16].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Limitations – Application Rejected - Court reiterated that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and can only be exercised if it is evident from the plaint that the suit is barred by law or discloses no cause of action – Held: Since valuation could not be conclusively disputed at threshold and cause of action was pleaded, plaint cannot be rejected [Paras 18–22].

Suit Maintainability – Trade Mark Act Section 142(2) – Not a Bar - Defendant’s claim that suit is barred under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 60 of the Copyright Act was rejected – Court observed that these provisions did not apply to the facts of the present case and cause of action was disclosed on plaint reading – Held: Suit for permanent injunction maintainable before civil court [Paras 4–5, 23].

Valuation in IPR Suits – Plaintiff’s Discretion Accepted – Undervaluation Allegation Rejected - Court reiterated principle that plaintiff as dominus litis has right to value the suit, subject to judicial scrutiny – In absence of material to show deliberate undervaluation, Court to accept plaintiff’s valuation at threshold – Held: Defendant failed to establish undervaluation; plaint valuation accepted [Paras 14, 16–17].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed - Court found no legal ground to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Dismissed revision petition and all pending applications – Suit to continue before Trial Court [Paras 24–25].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope under Order VII Rule 11 – Petition for rejection of plaint on ground of undervaluation and jurisdiction dismissed – Trial Court held suit for injunction over trademark “Shahi Sikka” was not barred by law and disclosed cause of action – Held: At threshold, only plaint averments are relevant and no legal bar or undervaluation could be established ex facie [Paras 1-3, 18-22].

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdictional Threshold – Intellectual Property Suits Valued Below ₹3 Lakhs – No Presumption of Bar – Defendant contended that suit must lie before Commercial Court due to IPR subject – Court rejected, citing Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel – Held: Unless specified value crosses ₹3 lakhs and it involves commercial dispute, Commercial Court jurisdiction not attracted – Plaintiff’s valuation accepted in absence of contrary material [Paras 4-15].

Trade Marks Act – Section 142(2) – Bar on Suits for Groundless Threats – No Groundless Threat Alleged – Defendant invoked Section 142(2) but failed to establish that suit for injunction was hit by statutory bar – Court held provisions inapplicable as suit did not allege threat of infringement action but sought direct relief against trademark usage [Paras 3, 5].

Plaint Valuation – Court Fee and Jurisdiction – Presumption in Favour of Plaintiff’s Valuation – No Evident Undervaluation – Court held that in absence of minimum statutory threshold, valuation must be tentatively accepted unless prima facie arbitrary – Defendant failed to show undervaluation or that court lacked jurisdiction [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Discretion – Use of Order VII Rule 11 – Drastic Power to be Exercised Cautiously – Only if Suit Ex Facie Barred by Law or Discloses No Cause of Action – Court reaffirmed that rejection of plaint must be based solely on plaint contents and not defendant's assertions – Held: Trial required for adjudication of factual disputes [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No legal bar or jurisdictional defect found in trial court’s refusal to reject plaint – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 23-24].

Service Law - Termination of Service – Applicability of Natural Justice to Private Employment – Principles Not Attracted - Appellant employed in a private unaided institution terminated with three months’ salary as per employment rules – No statutory or contractual protection against termination without cause – Held: Employer not bound to provide show-cause or personal hearing in such termination – Principles of natural justice inapplicable in contracts of private service [Paras 5.3, 11.3, 13].

Contract of Personal Service – Specific Performance Not Enforceable – Suit for Reinstatement Not Maintainable - The relief sought was essentially for specific performance of contract of personal service barred under Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Held: Claim for reinstatement or mandatory injunction directing continuation of service not legally tenable in private employment [Paras 11.2, 13].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law Raised – Appeal Dismissed - The grounds raised by appellant were factual disputes settled by concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court – No substantial question of law involved under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 12-14].

Limitation – Claim for Arrears of 5th Pay Commission Benefits – Barred by Time - Claim for arrears predating 01.01.1999 held time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Suit filed in 2002 was beyond three years from accrual of cause of action [Para 11.5].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Error in Lower Courts’ Findings - Held: Both trial and first appellate court judgments were legally sound – Appellant’s termination was lawful under contract terms and no substantial legal issue warranted interference – Regular second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 14-16].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Obviousness Based on Prior Art – Matter Remanded - The patent application claiming novel piperidine compounds with anti-cancer properties was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), referencing compounds from prior art D1 – The Court held that the reasoning was interlinked with non-patentability assessment under Section 3(d) and must be reconsidered after proper identification of the closest known substance – Remanded for fresh evaluation including analysis of enhanced efficacy data [Paras 3–4, 17–19].

Patent Law – Section 3(d) – New Form of Known Substance – Identification of Known Substance Mandatory – Objection Not Sustainable - The Controller failed to identify a specific ‘known substance’ in the prior art D1 against which the claimed compound was assessed – Citing DS Biopharma, the Court ruled that the absence of such identification deprived the applicant of an adequate opportunity to respond with comparative efficacy data – Rejection under Section 3(d) set aside [Paras 12–17].

Decision – Rejection Set Aside – Remanded for Fresh Consideration - The impugned order rejecting the patent was set aside – The matter was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh adjudication after providing the appellant a hearing and addressing all submissions – The fresh order must address patentability with clear identification of the known substance and evaluation of efficacy data [Paras 20–23].

Criminal Law - Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Illegal Possession and Conscious Custody – Conviction Confirmed – Accused intercepted while transporting 150 kg of ganja—Search and seizure compliant with Section 50 NDPS Act—Evidence of P.W.1 and independent witness P.W.3 held credible—Contraband properly seized, sealed, and produced—Court upheld trial court’s findings on conscious possession and recovery [Paras 2, 8].

Section 42 NDPS Act – Compliance Established – Written information regarding secret tip-off was typed and timely conveyed to superior—Court held compliance sufficient under guidelines in Karnail Singh—Typed version acceptable when handwritten record unavailable—Challenge rejected [Paras 9.4–9.5]

Section 67 NDPS Act – Statements Held Admissible – Tofan Singh ruling held applicable prospectively—Since statements were recorded prior to the ruling, they remain admissible—Court accepted them as corroborative evidence of conspiracy and intention [Paras 10.1–10.3].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Non-Strict Compliance Not Fatal – Contraband produced at remand, stored in godown, and properly marked—Supreme Court’s Bharat Aambale and Kashif rulings followed—Substantial compliance considered adequate in light of corroborative evidence [Paras 13.1–13.3].

Conspiracy and Attempt – Sections 28 and 29 NDPS Act – Conviction Upheld – Court found that coordinated travel, volume of contraband, and Section 67 statements proved attempt and conspiracy to traffic drugs—Each charge considered independently valid despite acquittal under Sections 25 and 27(A) NDPS Act [Paras 14].

Accused’s Explanation under Section 313 CrPC – Found Unbelievable – Defense claim that third party planted contraband during mechanical breakdown found to be false and unsubstantiated—No supporting material produced—Court held that explanation was an afterthought [Paras 11.1–11.2].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act affirmed—Court found compliance with procedural safeguards and corroborated recovery—No merit in defense contentions [Paras 15–16].

Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused – Validity of Summons under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – Special Court Empowered – Petitioners were initially cited as witnesses but were summoned as accused after evaluation of the case record – Held: Summoning was within the jurisdiction of the Special Court and does not constitute second cognizance – Offence-based cognizance allows summoning of new accused if material discloses their involvement [Paras 17-23, 26-27].

Sanction – Applicability to Retired Public Servants – Section 19 of PC Act – No Retrospective Effect – Petitioners (except Rajeev Arora) were retired before amendment to Section 19 took effect on 26.07.2018 – Held: Sanction not required for offences taken cognizance of prior to the amendment – Cognizance is of the offence, not the individual – Amendment does not apply retrospectively [Paras 65-68].

Section 197 Cr.P.C. – No Sanction Required for Offences of Cheating and Conspiracy – Held: Acts alleged have no reasonable nexus with official duties – Public servants cannot claim immunity under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for offences like cheating and abetment, as these acts lie outside the scope of official functions [Paras 63-64].

Article 20(3) – Protection Against Self-Incrimination – Not Violated – Petitioners were not accused at the time of their statements – Summons based on independent material – Held: No compulsion or constitutional violation established – Petitioners not entitled to protection under Article 20(3) [Paras 70-73].

Prima Facie Involvement – Deliberate Deferment of Award – Material Indicates Independent Action by Officials – Petitioners Rajeev Arora and D.R. Dhingra failed to act on repeated communications from the Land Acquisition Collector – Files went missing – Held: Prima facie case made out based on record and witness statements [Paras 29-37, 38-43].

Files Processed for Private Developers – Conduct of Petitioners Kulwant Singh Lamba and Dhare Singh – Petitioners involved in routing and clearing of license/CLU files post-deferment – Actions linked to benefit of private developers – Held: Same footing as co-accused – Summoning justified [Paras 44-48].

Disagreement with Police Report – Court Not Bound by IO’s Conclusions – Special Court has power to summon persons not named in chargesheet if prima facie material exists – Held: Magistrate or Special Court is not a post office – Summoning order valid [Paras 49-53].

Direction to Obtain Sanction – Procedural Step, Not a Mandate – Court directed CBI to place material before competent authority – Held: No judicial direction to grant sanction – Legal process under Section 19 of PC Act followed – No encroachment on administrative discretion [Paras 58-62].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – No Legal Error in Special Court’s Summoning Order – At summoning stage, only prima facie case is required – Detailed evaluation not warranted – Held: Trial must proceed – Petitions dismissed [Paras 74-76].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Ownership Claim Based on Sale Deeds – Dismissal of Suit – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of 'B' schedule property as part of 'A' schedule property located in Sy. Nos. 28/1 and 28/2 – Trial Court found that western boundaries in the sale deeds consistently mentioned the existence of Makali-Yadalu road – Boundaries in sale deeds and conversion order, along with plaintiffs’ own admissions, confirmed road as the dividing line – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish that 'B' schedule property fell within Sy. Nos. 28/1 and 28/2 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-43, 56-58].

Documentary Evidence – Rectification Deed and Survey Reports – Rectification Rejected – Plaintiffs sought to introduce rectification deed through application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to correct alleged boundary errors – Held: Rectification deed was neither disclosed earlier nor consistent with admitted documents – Vendor’s son (PW2) admitted that existing boundary was correctly described – Rectification application rejected as inadmissible and lacking bona fides [Paras 44-46].

Adverse Possession – Plea by Defendant – Not Established – Defendant claimed title by adverse possession over 'B' schedule property – Held: Defendant failed to plead or prove the essential elements of adverse possession, including specific date of possession, continuity, and hostility – Legal burden not discharged – Adverse possession plea rejected [Paras 47-54].

Pleading and Proof – Power of Attorney Holder as Sole Witness – Presumption Against Plaintiffs – Plaintiffs did not appear as witnesses and only examined GPA holder – Held: Failure of parties to step into witness box raises presumption that their version is untrustworthy – Plaintiffs’ failure to adduce direct evidence held fatal to their case [Paras 46, 57].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit upon correct appreciation of documents, survey sketches, and admissions by plaintiffs’ witnesses – Appellants failed to prove title or encroachment – No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 58].

Criminal Law - Foreign Exchange and Penal Law – Applicability of IPC Despite FEMA – No Implied Repeal – Prosecution Valid - Petitioners argued that once FEMA decriminalized foreign exchange violations, they could not be prosecuted under IPC for related acts – Held: IPC offences such as forgery and criminal conspiracy are distinct and independent – Doctrine of implied repeal does not apply – Reaffirmed that FEMA and IPC operate in separate legal domains and prosecution under IPC remains valid [Paras 19–29].

FIR Registration – Based on FEMA Search and ED Complaint – No Requirement of Preliminary Enquiry – FIR Upheld - Petitioners contended FIR based on ED complaint was invalid without preliminary enquiry – Held: FIR disclosed cognizable offences and was not based solely on inadmissible FEMA confessions – Registration mandatory under Lalita Kumari guidelines – No illegality found in police action [Paras 30–36].

Arrest Under PMLA – No Retrospective Application of Arvind Kejriwal Guidelines – Procedural Compliance Established – Arrest Valid - Petitioners challenged ED arrest citing non-compliance with PMLA Section 19(1) and (2) – Held: Petitioners were arrested before 12.07.2024, thus Arvind Kejriwal ruling did not apply retrospectively – ED complied with procedural requirements including timely forwarding to Adjudicating Authority – Arrest upheld [Paras 37–41].

Arrest Memo – Failure to Communicate Specific Grounds – Violation of Prabir Purkayastha – Arrest by Delhi Police Quashed - Delhi Police recorded only general reasons in the arrest memos without disclosing specific roles or incriminating circumstances – Held: Grounds of arrest were not duly communicated in writing – Violates Supreme Court’s mandate – Arrests in FIR set aside; petitioners to be released on bond [Paras 42–48].

Decision – Partial Relief – Arrests by ED Valid – Arrests by Delhi Police Quashed - While dismissing challenge to ED arrests and upholding validity of FIR registration, the Court quashed the arrest by Delhi Police for non-compliance with legal requirements – Directed release of petitioners from custody in the FIR case on personal bond [Paras 49–52].