Employment Dispute – Maintainability of Civil Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Specific Relief Act – Single Judge rejected plaint holding specific performance of employment contract barred under Section 14 SRA – Division Bench held rejection unsustainable since plaint also sought damages of ₹2 crores for arbitrary and mala fide termination and reputational harm – Cause of action disclosed, and rejection of part of plaint not permissible – Suit restored [Paras 2, 5-10].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Not Permissible – Court reiterated that plaint must be read as a whole; partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC impermissible – Relief for damages independent and maintainable even if reinstatement barred – Hence, plaint could not be rejected in entirety [Paras 6, 10].

Employment Law – Termination – Allegations of Mala Fides and Procedural Impropriety – Plaintiff pleaded arbitrary suspension, sham enquiry, collusion of senior officials, and reputational harm by public removal from workstation – Such allegations constituted triable issues requiring adjudication – Rejection of plaint at threshold erroneous [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Suit restored to file for trial – Parties directed to appear before Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025 [Paras 15-16].

Writs—FCI recovery based on CAG report—Natural justice—Quashing of demands—Petitioners assailed recovery/withholding founded solely on CAG observations without supply of report, notice or hearing—Held: CAG reports are recommendatory and non-adjudicatory; adverse action cannot be founded solely thereon absent independent determination and due process—Impugned communications quashed; respondents restrained from recoveries/impediments in tenders [Paras 30–33, 36–47, 71–75].

Public Contracts—Tender Clauses 10(D) & 10(F)—Loading/certification by FCI staff—Estoppel—Stocks loaded by FCI at its cost and delivered on 100% weighment slips signed in token of acceptance of quantity and quality—Once certified/released by FCI, later allegation of misclassification (FAQ in place of URS) is untenable; FCI estopped from approbating and reprobating years later [Paras 33–34, 62].

CAG—Jurisdiction/Scope—No power to opine on commodity quality—Quality of agricultural produce (URS vs FAQ) is a technical question for FCI/competent agencies; CAG’s audit role is financial/compliance, not investigative/adjudicatory—Unilateral quality conclusions by CAG without technical corroboration and without associating affected party are ultra vires and carry no binding effect [Paras 35–39, 41–47].

Administrative Law—Audi alteram partem—Failure to furnish CAG report/notice—Violation of natural justice—Adverse findings used against petitioners without supplying report or affording hearing vitiate consequential recovery/blacklisting actions; such ex parte condemnation is unconstitutional under Articles 14 & 21 [Paras 49–52, 70–74].

Contract—Jurisdiction Clause 15—Unilateral recovery impermissible—All disputes to be adjudicated by competent courts at Jammu; FCI cannot self-adjudicate liability or bypass agreed forum—Any recovery must follow proper judicial process; unilateral administrative demands are void [Paras 31, 54–59].

Limitation—Belated claims—Recovery after five years barred—Claims arising from 2015–2016 transactions initiated in 2021 are ex facie time-barred under Articles 55/113 Limitation Act; also hit by delay and laches—Administrative powers must be exercised within reasonable time [Paras 63–69].

Constitutional Law—Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21—Arbitrariness and right to livelihood—Unilateral, stale, and unadjudicated recoveries infringe equality and due process; actions impacting business/tenders engage protected livelihood interests and require fair procedure [Paras 46, 59, 71–74].

Decision—Both writ petitions allowed—Impugned communications dated 07.09.2021 (WP(C) 261/2023) and 05.07.2022 (WP(C) 1651/2022) quashed—Respondents restrained from withholding petitioners’ amounts in any other tender, from creating impediments in future tenders/e-auctions on basis of the impugned actions, and from initiating any recovery against petitioners [Paras 75–76].

Service Law – Absorption on Takeover – Special Officer (CAPE) vs. Senior Superintendent (DME) – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioner appointed as Special Officer under CAPE, probation declared post-takeover; later downgraded to UDC by Govt. order – Tribunal dismissed challenge citing lack of proof of equivalence – High Court noted crucial documents (Exts.P9 & P10) recommending creation of Senior Superintendent post to accommodate petitioner were withheld – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring these – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 10–18].

Qualification Dispute – MBA as Postgraduate Degree – To Be Examined by Tribunal – Notification required Post Graduation + MBA – Govt. disputed MBA as PG – Court held issue of qualification and equivalence must be considered afresh along with absorption claim [Paras 7–13].

Parity Claim – Vanishing Category Posts – Engineers Retained, Officer Downgraded – Petitioner argued Engineers allowed to continue as vanishing category; same principle should apply – Court held Tribunal must examine parity argument in light of policy documents and Govt. practice [Paras 8–13].

Final Order – Tribunal’s judgment dated 04.03.2025 in O.A. No.79/2020 set aside – Case remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with Exts.P9 & P10 and observations of Court – OP allowed [Para 18].

Criminal Law - Counterfeit Currency – Section 489C IPC – Conviction Sustained – Appellants apprehended in 2008 raid at Chandni Chowk with 20 counterfeit ₹500 notes (12 from Aashim, 8 from Mehtab Jahan) – Defence of false implication rejected – Police evidence, though uncorroborated by public witnesses, accepted after careful scrutiny; consistent and credible – Expert report from Currency Note Press, Nashik, confirmed notes were forged – Held: Knowledge and intent to use as genuine could be inferred from denial of recovery and lack of explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Conviction upheld [Paras 8-13].

Evidence – Police Witnesses – No Public Witness – Court reiterated law in Kalpnath Rai v. State (1997) 8 SCC 732 – Evidence of police officials not to be discarded merely for want of public witness; requires stricter scrutiny – In this case, testimonies of PW-4, PW-10, PW-11 credible and consistent – Recovery proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8-9].

Mens Rea – Presumption from Circumstances – Possession of counterfeit notes without explanation sufficient to infer requisite knowledge – Burden on accused under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain innocent possession – Failure to do so justified inference of intention to use as genuine [Paras 12-13].

Sentence – Reduction Considering Delay & Age – Incident of 2008, conviction in 2012, appeal decided in 2025 – Appellants aged 39 and 68 years – Considering lapse of 17 years, mitigating factors, and period undergone, sentence reduced to 6 months’ simple imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000 each (in default, 15 days SI) – Section 428 Cr.P.C. benefit granted [Paras 15].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction maintained – Sentence modified to 6 months’ SI with fine of ₹10,000 each – Bail/sureties adjusted [Paras 14-16].

Taxation Law - GST Search – Advocate’s Office – Attorney–Client Privilege – Seizure of CPU – Safeguards Imposed – The petitioner, an advocate, challenged the search and seizure conducted at his office by the GST Department, including the seizure of his CPU containing confidential client data. The Court emphasised that an advocate’s office enjoys protection of attorney–client privilege and cannot be subjected to harassment unless prima facie material shows personal involvement in illegality. While refraining from commenting on merits of allegations that the advocate was involved in the client’s business, the Court held that the seized CPU may be examined only under strict safeguards, with cloned copies provided, and only client-related data (Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd.) extracted. Sealed cover reliance by GST was restricted, requiring redacted disclosure to the petitioner. Interim protection against coercive action granted – CPU inspection fixed under Court supervision – Matter listed for further hearing [Paras 14–16, 19, 22–24, 29–32].

Search & Seizure – Advocate’s Office – Section 67(2) CGST Act – Confidentiality & Attorney–Client Privilege – Search at law office requires heightened safeguards – GST Department cautioned not to open/access advocate’s computer without his presence and consent – Any such action could amount to breach of professional privilege [Paras 14–15, 22].

Seizure of CPU – Safeguards Imposed – Court directed that GST Department may examine petitioner’s CPU only in presence of petitioner, two lawyers/forensic expert, Delhi High Court IT officials, and a forensic expert from GST side – CPU to be cloned, with one copy given to petitioner – Only client-related files (Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd.) to be extracted; CPU thereafter to be resealed and kept in custody of GST Department [Paras 19, 23–24].

Sealed Cover Procedure – Reliance Impermissible – Following Supreme Court ruling in Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India (2022), Court held that petitioner must be made aware, at least in redacted form, of materials relied upon by GST Department – Sealed covers cannot be sole basis for adjudication [Paras 15–16, 24–25].

Prima Facie Case – Alleged Role of Advocate in Client’s Business – GST Department alleged advocate was not merely legal counsel but actively ran affairs of gaming client “Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd.” – Court refrained from observations on merits; sought substantiation through affidavits with redacted disclosure [Paras 11–13, 18–19].

Interim Protection – No Coercive Action – Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against petitioner; his presence required only for CPU inspection on 11–12 September 2025 – Costs of IT officials to be shared equally by petitioner and GST Department [Paras 23, 27, 29].

Next Steps – GST Department to file affidavit specifying allegations based on CPU data, intended further steps, and petitioner’s role as per statements (in redacted form) – Non-redacted version to be shown to Court – Matter listed for 30.10.2025 [Paras 24–26, 31–32].

Specific Relief Act  - Agreement to Sell – Claim of Earnest Money by Stranger – Concurrent Findings Against Plaintiff – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant claimed to have paid ₹46,85,625/- as earnest money and to have inserted respondent no.1’s name in agreement dated 14.10.2011 in good faith – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held that agreement (Ex.P1) showed respondent no.1 as buyer and no evidence supported appellant’s plea – Bank records proved earnest money was paid by respondent no.1 from funds withdrawn from his and his wife’s accounts – Held: No cogent evidence by appellant; concurrent findings sustained [Paras 2–9].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of fact by both courts below that appellant was never part of transaction and consideration flowed from respondent no.1 – High Court found no substantial question of law arising – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Writ for Declaration/Recovery – Relief Denied – In absence of proof of involvement or payment by appellant, suit rightly dismissed; second appeal also dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Section 528 BNSS - Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 of Constitution – Permission to Study Overseas Granted – The petitioner, a 21-year-old student, sought permission to go abroad for higher studies in Germany but was denied by the trial court on apprehension of absconding – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Courts can secure presence of accused by imposing stringent conditions such as heavy surety and undertakings – Trial Court erred in denying permission solely on apprehension – Order set aside – Petition allowed subject to conditions [Paras 8-17].

Bail Conditions and Judicial Discretion – Accused on Bail – Future Prospects – The petitioner was already on bail in connection with offences under IPC and SC/ST Act – Court held that denial of study opportunities would be detrimental to his reformation and career prospects – Liberty to impose strict conditions to ensure trial participation – Petition accepted [Paras 3-4, 13-17].

Decision: Impugned order dated 13.08.2024 set aside – Petitioner permitted to go abroad for studies subject to stringent conditions, including heavy surety and undertaking to not object to trial proceedings in absence – Petition allowed [Paras 16-18].

Trademark – Passing Off – Prior Use – Interim Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC - Plaintiff (Hi Tech Arai Pvt Ltd) established use of “HTA” from 1985 through technical drawings, invoices, purchase orders, packaging since 1997 and substantial sales turnover (~₹600 crores in 2022-23) – Defendants’ claim of use since 1977 unsupported; their first TM application in 2007 claimed use only since 1994 – Later change of user claim to 1977 held manipulative – Prima facie held: Plaintiff prior adopter and user – Injunction granted [Paras 31-39, 67-71].

Fabricated Documents – Doctored Photographs & Brochures – Defendants produced manipulated photographs in earlier litigation, inserting “HTA” into trade fair banners originally bearing “Paul Components” – Wayback Machine evidence confirmed fabrication – Brochures with impossible mobile numbers (issued only post-2009) and incorrect Auto Expo editions (2008/2020 misrepresented) filed – Held: deliberate fabrication to falsely show earlier use; documents unreliable [Paras 44-57].

Bad Faith Adoption – Copying of Plaintiff’s Marks & Packaging – Defendants failed to justify adoption of “HTA” (only claiming “H” stood for Harinder Kaur, with no explanation for “T” and “A”) – Also applied for plaintiff’s licensed marks “ARS” and “ARAI” without basis, and copied plaintiff’s packaging by shifting from violet to black/yellow to resemble plaintiff’s trade dress – Defendants also applied for well-known third-party marks like “JCB”, “Cummins”, “Hino Prime”, “Meritor” – Held: dishonest intent and mala fide adoption established [Paras 72-87].

Trademark Law – Passing Off Despite Registration – Court reaffirmed principle that action for passing off under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act is unaffected by registration; common law rights of prior user prevail even against registered proprietor – Observed: deception and confusion likely since both sell identical products (oil seals) in identical channels [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Plaintiff made out strong prima facie case of passing off – Balance of convenience and irreparable injury in its favour – Defendants restrained till final adjudication from (i) using “HTA” mark; (ii) using concentric circle logos deceptively similar; (iii) using plaintiff’s trade dress for packaging – Suit listed for further hearing on 04.11.2025 [Paras 88-93].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Scope of Maintenance under Section 9 – Lump Sum Compensation of ₹5,00,000/- Ordered by Tribunal – Quashed – Tribunal granted ex parte order directing children to pay ₹5,00,000/- compensation to senior citizen parents and restore possession – Held: Act provides only for recurring maintenance up to ₹10,000/- per month under Section 9(2) and not lump sum compensation – Tribunal acted beyond jurisdiction – Order quashed [Paras 11-13].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Validity of Service – Assistant Commissioner passed order without proof of proper service of notice on petitioners – Violation of natural justice – Ex parte proceedings vitiated – Order unsustainable [Paras 11-12].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Senior Citizens Act – Beneficial Object – Court reiterated that Act must be interpreted in light of its social purpose to secure dignity, sustenance, and protection for elders – Referred to Urmila Dixit, S. Vanitha, Vijaya Manohar Arbat, Badshah, Rajnesh v. Neha, Ashwani Kumar – However, such beneficial interpretation cannot permit Tribunal to exceed statutory cap of ₹10,000/- prescribed under Section 9(2) [Paras 8, 13-14].

Maintenance Quantum – Spiralling Inflation – Court observed that cost of living since 2007 has risen exponentially – ₹10,000/- cap outdated and inadequate – Recommended Union Government to amend Section 9 and revise ceiling in tune with cost inflation index – Pending legislative reform, enhanced interim maintenance fixed at ₹30,000/- per month to each senior citizen from date of order [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order dated 16.04.2021 quashed – Matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after hearing parties – Petitioners directed to pay maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month each from 16.04.2021 till date, and ₹30,000/- per month each prospectively until decision – If ₹5,00,000/- already paid, same to be adjusted towards arrears – Copy of judgment directed to be sent to Union Finance Ministry for consideration of recommendation [Para 21].