Civil Writ - Municipal Permissions – Building Permission – GVMC Authority – Jurisdiction – Petitioners claimed ownership of 1743 sq. yards and challenged permission to Respondent No.6 based on Development Agreement with Respondent No.5 – Petitioners relied on earlier orders holding Respondent No.5 had no valid title – Court held GVMC cannot decide title; permission granted on prima facie satisfaction of documents – Held: Impugned order dated 29.05.2024 is a speaking order pursuant to prior writ directions; no jurisdictional error – Writ dismissed [Paras 20–27, 29–31].

Property Law – Title Dispute – Competence of Municipal Authorities – Authorities cannot adjudicate civil title disputes – Disputes regarding validity of Respondent No.5’s title and Development Agreement with Respondent No.6 to be decided by competent Civil Court – Civil suit (O.S. No.121 of 2025) already pending – Hence, writ remedy not available to adjudicate title [Paras 22–23, 25, 29].

Contempt – Alleged Violation of Interim Order – Interim direction dated 26.11.2024 restrained interference with petitioners’ possession – Respondent No.6 had already undertaken construction pursuant to building permission dated 14.07.2020 – Court held no wilful disobedience; contempt petition dismissed as consequence of dismissal of writ [Paras 2, 28, 31].

Decision – Court found no grounds to interfere with GVMC’s order – Writ petition dismissed without costs – Contempt case dismissed – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 31].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Ingredients of Offence under Section 304-A IPC – Respondent accused of driving a Gramin Sewa van rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of two scooter riders and injury to a child – Prosecution relied primarily on testimony of sole eyewitness (PW1) – PW1’s statements contradictory regarding position of vehicles, manner of impact, and presence at the scene – Delay of three hours in FIR registration unexplained – No independent witnesses or passengers examined – Mechanical inspection found vehicle fit for road use – Held: Mere assertion of “high speed” without proof of rashness or negligence insufficient to establish guilt – Essential ingredient of rash and negligent driving not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3–5, 13–14].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Contradictions and Reliability – PW1’s presence at the accident site doubtful – His version inconsistent with site plan and investigating officer’s testimony – Failure to inform police or participate in spot proceedings undermines credibility – Trial Court rightly disbelieved PW1’s account – No corroboration from independent or scientific evidence [Paras 4, 10, 13].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – High Court reaffirmed settled principle that appellate interference with acquittal must be cautious – Once acquitted, accused enjoys reinforced presumption of innocence – Reference made to Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 8 SCC 536 and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and supported by evidence; no perversity or illegality found [Paras 11–12, 15].

Negligence – Rule of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Applicability – Court reiterated that negligence cannot be presumed from mere occurrence of accident – Principle of res ipsa loquitur applies only when accident circumstances exclude any cause other than negligence – Supported by Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P., (2000) 7 SCC 72 and State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493 [Paras 7–8, 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – No evidence of rash or negligent driving – Trial Court’s findings upheld – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of respondent.

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Personality/Publicity Rights – Unauthorized commercial exploitation and AI-generated misuse – Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted – Plaintiff alleged sale of merchandise and online content using his name, image, likeness, signature and other attributes, including AI/deepfake content and platform-facilitated listings – Held: Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury established – Court restrained Defendants from exploiting Plaintiff’s persona and directed wide takedowns and disclosures under a structured set of directions [Paras 32-39].

Exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation – Section 12A CC Act – Urgent interim relief – Exemption granted – In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, urgent interim relief warranted exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation – Application allowed [Paras 1-3].

Court Fees – Section 149 CPC – Time extended – Considering submissions, two weeks’ time granted to deposit court fees – Application disposed of [Paras 6-8].

Additional Documents – Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC (Commercial Suits) – Leave granted – Plaintiff permitted to file additional documents in accordance with CC Act and Original Side Rules [Paras 9-11].

Electronic Evidence Certificate – Section 63(4)(c), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Time extended – Plaintiff directed to file requisite certificate within four weeks – Application allowed [Paras 12-14].

Notice to Government Authorities – Section 80(2) CPC – Exemption from prior notice – Exemption granted qua Ministry of Electronics & IT and Department of Telecommunications as pro forma parties to facilitate implementation of Court’s orders [Paras 15-17].

Institution, Summons and Pleadings – Registration of suit, issuance of summons/notice – Directions on filing Written Statements with affidavits of admission/denial and timelines for replications and inspection – Joint Registrar date fixed – Platform-defendant (D-15) to provide BSI for D-10 to D-14 and Plaintiff to amend memo accordingly [Paras 18-25].

Discovery Application – Order XI Rules 1, 3, 5 CPC – Notice issued – Timelines set for replies/rejoinders – Service directions reiterated [Paras 26-29].

Scope of Personality Rights & Privacy – Technology-enabled depictions – Court’s articulation – Unauthorized use of a celebrity’s persona including via AI/deepfakes dilutes goodwill, causes confusion as to endorsement, and intrudes upon privacy and dignity—judicial intervention warranted to prevent irreversible harm [Paras 35-38].

Interim Reliefs – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Comprehensive injunctive and takedown regime – Defendants 1–14 & 18 restrained from using Plaintiff’s name “Abhishek Bachchan”/acronym “AB”, voice, image/likeness, performances or any persona attributes via any technology including AI/GenAI/deepfakes/face morphing – Specific takedown obligations imposed on website operators, platforms (including YouTube/Google LLC), marketplace entities, and directions to Government authorities to issue necessary blocking orders – Platforms directed to furnish BSI (names, emails, contact numbers, IP logs, registration details) in sealed cover/password-protected format within stipulated timelines – Liberty to Plaintiff to circulate order and Annexure-A to hosting entities for compliance – Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC directed – Next date fixed [Paras 39(i)-(xiii), 40-42].

Decision (Interim): Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted restraining misuse of Plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights and directing extensive takedown/blocking and BSI disclosures—procedural exemptions and timelines granted as above [Paras 1-3, 12-17, 35-42].

Civil Law - Suit for Possession - Ownership of Property – Burden of Proof – Sale Deed without signatures – Appeal dismissed – Appellant claimed ownership of property based on Sale Deed dated 27.10.1995 executed by mother – Trial Court dismissed suit holding appellant failed to prove ownership – High Court upheld finding noting last page of Sale Deed lacked mother’s signatures/thumb impression and appellant failed to examine executant, attesting witnesses or produce credible evidence – Mere registration does not validate defective deed [Paras 8-14, 40-42].

Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Application rejected – Appellant sought to produce original Sale Deed belatedly during appeal, claiming it was earlier mortgaged – Held: No due diligence shown, unexplained delay of several years, and document produced under suspicious circumstances – Supreme Court precedents in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 and H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy (2021) 5 SCC 241 applied – Additional evidence cannot be admitted at leisure of party [Paras 15-23].

Suspicious Circumstances – Doubtful authenticity of Sale Deed – Signatures of appellant differed (Hindi in pleadings vs English on deed despite admission of inability to read English) – Discrepancies between copy produced before Trial Court and original later produced in appeal, including presence/absence of executant’s signatures and altered placement of photographs – These anomalies cast serious doubt on genuineness of document [Paras 28-35].

Licensee Claim – Failure to Prove – Appellant alleged respondent was licensee in property – No license agreement or evidence of payment of license fee produced – Claim rejected [Para 36].

Consideration for Sale – Lack of Proof – Alleged cash payment of Rs. 75,000/- for purchase from mother not supported by receipt, bank record or source of funds – Weakens appellant’s case [Para 37].

Decision – Appellant failed to prove ownership of property or validity of Sale Deed – Additional evidence not admissible – Appeal and pending applications dismissed – Trial Court judgment upheld [Paras 41-43].

Civil Writ - Medical Education – Bonded Service – Higher Studies – Government Resolution 2017 – Petitioner signed post-PG bond requiring two years’ service – Clause 1(e) expressly allows bond to pause if candidate gets higher studies opportunity and resume post-study – Held: Subsequent Resolutions of 2021/2024 restricting NOC to NMC-approved courses not applicable – Petitioner governed only by 2017 Resolution signed by him – Rejection on grounds of non-NMC recognition and OMHS cadre unsustainable [Paras 18-19].

Suspension – Effect on Right to Education – Suspension since 10.02.2024 after vigilance case alleging bribe – Departmental proceedings not initiated; investigation pending over 18 months without review – Held: Suspension is interim, not punitive; cannot by itself bar higher studies when bond/resolution permits – Article 21 right to education extends to in-service doctors; denial solely for pendency of suspension unsustainable [Paras 20-23].

Right to Education – Constitutional Dimension – Education integral to dignity under Article 21 – Supreme Court in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666, Unni Krishnan (1993) 1 SCC 645, and Society for Unaided Private Schools (2012) 6 SCC 1 held right to education as fundamental – Applied to service doctors: pendency of criminal/disciplinary proceedings alone cannot deny NOC for higher studies – State bound to facilitate [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Order dated 16.12.2024 rejecting NOC quashed – Opposite Party No.1 directed to issue NOC for petitioner to join fellowship at Jaslok Hospital within two weeks of verification – Subject to undertaking by petitioner to attend disciplinary/criminal proceedings as required – Writ Petition allowed; no costs [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Revision – Discharge – BNSS Ss. 438 & 442 – PC Act S. 13(1)(c), (d) r/w 13(2) – IPC Ss. 409, 420, 120B – Refusal to Discharge Upheld – Allegation that Board-level approval enabled supply of limestone at ₹689.87/MT against an earlier ₹621/MT with inferior quality/quantity, causing loss to Malabar Cements Ltd – Held: On materials placed, a prima facie case exists and issues raised by A6 & A7 (price parity with earlier supplier, royalty/diesel escalation, and purported profit) require trial – Special Court’s order disallowing discharge calls for no interference – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-3, 11, 14-16].

Public Servants – Board Decisions & Criminal Misconduct – Scope at Discharge Stage – Accused contended they merely participated in Board meetings and acted bona fide; prosecution pointed to creation of artificial demand, advance of ₹32 lakhs, and rate escalation with poorer quality/quantity – Principle reiterated that where materials disclose more than mere suspicion regarding abuse of position conferring pecuniary advantage, the matter must proceed to trial – Discharge declined [Paras 3-8, 11, 14-16].

Comparative Pricing – Contractual Clauses – Earlier purchase order’s “₹621/MT inclusive of levies/diesel” and provisions for revision relied upon by defence – Court noted the prosecution case that prior price did not rise to ₹689/MT and flagged contemporaneous mining/quantity constraints in Crescent Mines’ Modified Mining Plan – Whether escalations would equate to or justify ₹689/MT is a matter of evidence – Not a ground for discharge [Paras 12-15].

Discharge Threshold – Application of Supreme Court Precedents – Century Spinning (AIR 1972 SC 545), Muniswamy ((1977) 2 SCC 699) and Prafulla Kumar Samal (AIR 1979 SC 366) discussed – Court emphasized that at the stage of discharge, if materials raise a grave suspicion warranting trial, the Court should not weigh defence documents conclusively – Special Court recorded reasons and correctly refused discharge – High Court declined to interfere under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 9-11, 16].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Special Court directed to proceed – No interference with the refusal to discharge Accused Nos. 6 and 7 [Para 16].

POCSO – Child Rape – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on 9-year-old neighbour – Victim’s consistent testimony supported by parents’ depositions – Delay in FIR explained as due to absence of father and social stigma – Medical report noting possibility of penetration and absence of hymen corroborated – Negative FSL report immaterial – Section 29 POCSO presumption applied as foundational facts proved – Defence plea of false implication over quarrel rejected – Conviction and sentence affirmed, appeal dismissed [Paras 7-15, 18-21].

Child Witness – Reliability – Court reiterated law that conviction can rest on sole testimony of a child if found competent and trustworthy – No signs of tutoring or contradictions – Victim’s evidence detailed and credible, sufficient without corroboration – Supreme Court precedents in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare, Ranjeet Kumar Ram, Balveer Singh applied [Paras 8-10].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Hymen absent, penetration possible – Law does not mandate injuries or semen detection for conviction – Corroboration rule is prudential, not mandatory – Victim’s credible testimony sufficient – Supreme Court rulings in Ranjit Hazarika and Satyapal followed [Paras 15-17].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO – Once prosecution establishes foundational facts (identity, age, act of penetration), presumption of guilt operates – Accused failed to rebut presumption through cross-examination or defence evidence – Mere allegation of quarrel insufficient – Conviction sustained [Paras 18-20].

Decision – No error in Trial Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 6 POCSO and Section 363 IPC upheld [Paras 21-22].

Bail in PMLA Case – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Rigorous Standard Reiterated – Petition for bail under Section 439 CrPC in context of alleged laundering of ₹2.83 crores under PMLA – Held: Bail in PMLA cases governed by twin conditions under Section 45 – Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Petitioner failed to meet this threshold – Bail rightly denied [Paras 6-11].

Proceeds of Crime – Direct Nexus Established – Petitioner’s Account Involved – Investigating agency traced proceeds of crime to bank account of petitioner used in laundering activity – Specific transaction trails established by ED showing petitioner’s complicity – Court found sufficient material to form prima facie belief of guilt [Paras 10-11].

Parity Not Applicable – Distinct Role of Petitioner – Merely Because Co-Accused Was Granted Bail Not Ground for Automatic Enlargement – Petitioner’s role found to be distinct and more direct than co-accused – Parity principle not attracted when material shows individualized involvement in offence [Para 12].

Right to Bail – Liberty under Article 21 – Not Absolute – Preventive Objective of PMLA – Though Article 21 guarantees personal liberty, in PMLA cases involving economic offences with societal impact, rigours of bail under Section 45 override general considerations – Held: Liberty must be balanced with interests of justice and economic order [Paras 13-15].

Final Order – Bail Rejected – No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – High Court refused to interfere with the lower court’s refusal of bail – Noted gravity of allegations and sufficiency of ED’s investigation – Directed trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings of NDPS – Section 482 CrPC – Accused Named Only in Co-accused Statement – No Recovery – Delay of 14 Years – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioner implicated in Jalangi P.S. Case No.308/2010 based solely on confession of co-accused; no recovery made from him, no evidence collected despite warrant issued in 2010 – Police inactive for 14 years citing bifurcation of police stations – Held: Statement of co-accused alone inadmissible; failure to collect material despite long lapse renders continuation abuse of process – Entire proceedings including FIR, chargesheet and orders quashed; petitioner released [Paras 7–15].

Evidence – Statement of Co-accused – Confession to Police Officer – Inadmissibility – Court reiterated law from Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1184) and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 – Confession to police inadmissible under Sections 25–26 Evidence Act & Section 162 CrPC – At best a “lead” requiring verification – No independent corroboration found against petitioner [Paras 9–12, 14].

Police Inaction – Non-execution of Warrant – Liberty of Accused – Court criticized unconscionable failure of police to execute warrant for 14 years; bifurcation of police stations no ground for inaction – Duty of police to act upon warrant; failure cannot prejudice accused’s liberty [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Proceedings in NDPS Case No.35/2024 quashed – Petitioner to be released immediately unless required in any other case – No order as to costs [Paras 15–16].