Criminal Law - Bail for Juvenile - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Sections 12 and 103(1) BNS - Appellant a child in conflict with law (CCL) accused of murder - Bail rejected by Children Court on grounds of criminal antecedents and lack of guardianship - Appellant's name transpired in confessional statement of co-accused - Identified in CCTV footage - Social Investigation Report (SIR) indicated association with criminal gangs and addiction to intoxicants - Parents residing in Jharkhand leaving CCL without local guardianship in Bihar - High Court analyzed Section 12 JJ Act observing that bail is a rule and refusal an exception based only on three specific statutory grounds - Held - Considering the lack of conducive family environment and the CCL's need for reformation and protection from criminal associations - his continued detention in Safety Home is in his best interest for reformatory measures - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Statutory Interpretation of Bail Provisions - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Section 12 - Mandatory Release - High Court clarified that gravity of offence or age of juvenile are not relevant considerations for denial of bail under the J.J. Act - Section 12 overrides general criminal procedure and remains applicable even if a juvenile is being tried as an adult - Bail can only be denied if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the person into association with known criminals or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice - Held - The phrase "ends of justice" must be interpreted in the context of child welfare and rehabilitation rather than the punitive standards of general criminal jurisprudence - [Paras 7-16].

Criminal Law - Social Investigation Report and Reformative Principles - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 - Sections 3 and 15(2) - Role of SIR - SIR is a mandatory document used to assess the socio-economic conditions and reformative needs of the CCL - Principle of institutionalization as a last resort dictates that children should ideally be reunited with families - However the primary responsibility of care belongs to the biological family - Held - Where the family environment is absent or non-conducive as in the present case where parents live in another state and CCL is an addict in bad company - the Safety Home serves the protective and rehabilitatory purpose of the Act - [Paras 17-25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial expedited with direction to the Children Court to conclude the proceedings preferably within nine months.

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 29 - Allied and Cognate Goods - Plaintiff sought interim injunction against Defendants for using the mark GODFATHER as part of a composite mark for whisky - Plaintiff established prior use and registration of arbitrary mark GODFATHER for beer in Class 32 since 1984 and for alcoholic beverages in Class 33 since 2005 - Defendants argued that beer and whisky are distinct products with different price points - alcohol content - and consumption patterns - Court observed that both products are alcoholic beverages sold through common trade channels and retail outlets under the same regulatory excise regime in India - Held - Beer and whisky are allied and cognate products - The price variation and target consumer profile are not the metrics to decide similarity of goods when trade channels and nature are common - Prime facie case for infringement made out - [Paras 16-18 and 23-26].

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 28 - Rights of Registered Proprietor - Defendants alleged non-use of the mark by Plaintiff for whisky since 2013 - Court clarified that registration under Section 18 confers exclusive statutory rights under Section 28 irrespective of whether the mark is used in the ordinary course - Held - Non-use of a registered trademark does not ipso facto deprive a proprietor of the right to sue for infringement - Registration remains valid and enforceable until rectified or cancelled in accordance with law - [Paras 10-15].

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 29 - Anti-dissection Rule and Dominant Feature Test - Defendants contended that their mark is composite and must be viewed as a whole including the personality name Sanjay Dutt and the brand The Glenwalk - Court found that GODFATHER remained the prominent and essential element of the Defendants mark which catches the eye of the general consumer - Held - Principle of anti-dissection does not apply when the essential element of a registered word mark is available in the composite mark - Deceptive similarity is established when the dominant part of the mark is identical to the registered mark - [Paras 19-22 and 27-30].

Civil Law - Passing Off - Goodwill and Reputation - Plaintiff demonstrated sales turnover of Rs 746 crores and decades of use - Court found that the mark GODFATHER is exclusively associated with the Plaintiff - Held - Defendants use of the same mark for whisky would cause an average consumer to believe the product emanates from the Plaintiff - Defendants attempted to ride on the coattails of Plaintiffs goodwill - Balance of convenience in favor of Plaintiff - [Paras 6.12 and 30-32].

Decision: Application allowed – Defendants and their associates restrained from manufacturing - bottling - selling - or advertising whisky under the mark GODFATHER or GODFATHER S or any deceptively similar mark during the pendency of the suit – Defendants directed to take down all online listings and advertisements bearing the infringing mark.

Civil Law - Matrimonial Property - Special Marriage Act 1954 - Section 27 - Recovery of money and car repair expenses - Appellant husband challenged the decree of the Family Court allowing the wife recovery of three distinct sums - claims involved car repair costs of Rs 12566 proceeds from premature closure of a recurring deposit of Rs 50000 and bank transfers totaling Rs 344367 - High Court observed that the husband admitted using the car and failed to dispute the repair claims during cross examination - regarding the recurring deposit closure the wife provided a specific narration of coercion supported by bank statements while the husband made only an evasive denial - Held - trial court findings on car repairs and recurring deposit proceeds were based on evidence and probability and required no interference - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Gratuitous Transactions - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 70 - Bank transfers between spouses - Recovery of funds transferred via bank account - Wife sought recovery of Rs 344367 transferred to the husband alleging coercion and ill treatment - High Court examined the bank statement Ext A5 containing transaction descriptions such as MB FOR MY HERO gift and monthly expenses - court analyzed the frequency and nature of these transactions - Held - transaction descriptions render allegations of coercion highly improbable - payments indicate a gratuitous exchange between spouses in the ordinary course of their matrimonial relationship rather than an entrustment for a specific purpose - principle of recovery under Section 70 cannot be invoked for gratuitous marital transfers - decree for recovery of bank transfers set aside - [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Impugned decree modified by setting aside the direction for recovery of Rs 3,44,367 from the appellant – Directions regarding recovery of car repair costs and recurring deposit proceeds affirmed.

Criminal Law - Default Bail - NDPS Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Extension of remand period - Petitioners/Accused Nos 3 and 4 challenged Trial Court order extending remand beyond 180 days in Crime No 264 of 2025 of Kasimkota Police Station - High Court noted that extension requires a specific report by the Public Prosecutor indicating independent application of mind and assessment of investigation progress - Trial Court failed to ensure the Public Prosecutor acted as an independent statutory authority rather than a mere forwarding agency for the Investigating Officer - Public Prosecutor did not file a report as envisaged under the proviso to Section 36A(4) and the petition did not disclose satisfaction with investigation progress - Trial Court failed to inform the accused of the extension request and failed to assign special reasons for detention beyond 180 days - Held - Extension order set aside for non-compliance with statutory requirements and principles of personal liberty - Criminal Revision Case allowed - [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Law - Public Prosecutor Duties - NDPS Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Independent Application of Mind - Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority and not part of the investigating agency - Report must clearly state reasons for further detention and justify the need for additional time - Mere forwarding of the Investigating Officer request is insufficient and cannot substitute a proper report - Failure to comply grants the accused an indefeasible right to default bail - Held - Public Prosecutor failed to independently assess investigation progress or file a valid report - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Petitioners enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties – Petitioners directed to appear before SHO Kasimkota Police Station every Saturday – Petitioners prohibited from leaving the District without permission and directed to surrender passports.

Writ Law - Scheduled Castes Inclusion - Constitution of India - Article 341 - Mandatory Procedure - Petitioner filed writ seeking inclusion of Mallah and Majhwar communities in the Scheduled Caste list - Argued that Nishad-Kashyap-Kewat-Mallah and Bind are synonyms or generic names of the caste Majhwar which is notified at Entry 52 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 - Relied on Census Manual 1961 and a State notification dated 10.10.2005 - Respondents raised preliminary objection that inclusion in the list amounts to legislative enactment permissible only by Parliament under Article 341 - Court noted that the 2005 notification relied upon was rescinded in 2007 and the communities in question are recognized as Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Act of 1994 - Detailed analysis of Constitution Bench precedents in Milind and Basavalingappa cases - Held - Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution empower only the Parliament to include or exclude any caste or tribe from the Presidential Orders - It is not permissible for State Governments or Courts to hold inquiries or lead evidence to declare any caste as a synonym or sub-caste of a notified entry if not specifically mentioned in the Order - Presidential Orders must be read as they stand and cannot be modified except by law made by Parliament - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-36].

Constitutional Law - Presidential Orders - Constitution of India - Articles 341 and 342 - Scope of Judicial Review - Petitioner sought to mould relief to treat certain communities as synonyms of an existing Scheduled Caste entry - Contended that sub-classification is permissible per Davinder Singh case - Court found the argument misconceived - Distinction drawn between sub-classification for benefit distribution among notified castes and the initial recognition of a caste as a Scheduled Caste - Held - Recognition of a caste as Scheduled Caste is governed strictly by Article 341 - No inquiry is permissible to include a group in a general name if not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Presidential Order - [Paras 13-34].

Writ Law - Conduct of Petitioner - Suppression of Material Facts - Petitioner relied on State notification dated 10.10.2005 to claim Scheduled Caste status - Notification was rescinded by State Government on 04.07.2007 - Writ petition was filed in 2012 without disclosing the rescission - Held - Conduct of the petitioner in filing the petition on the strength of a rescinded notification without disclosure cannot be appreciated - [Para 27].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Delay and Laches - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 10 - Belated Industrial Dispute - Respondent-employee dismissed in October 2000 for fraudulent withdrawals and misappropriation of customer funds - Raised industrial dispute after 13 years in 2013 - Reference made in 2014 - Statement of Claim filed in 2018 - Petitioner-Bank destroyed enquiry records after 10 years as per standard banking practice - Industrial Tribunal Pune held domestic enquiry fair but branded findings perverse solely due to Bank's inability to produce original depositions of 11 witnesses - High Court observed Respondent was responsible for delay of 18 to 24 years in various stages of adjudication - Held - Employee cannot take advantage of his own wrong - Tribunal's decision to reward a negligent litigant for delay that caused disappearance of evidence is unsustainable - Findings of Enquiry Officer were based on discussed evidence and cannot be termed perverse merely because records were destroyed over time - Awards set aside - [Paras 1-25].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 10 - Destruction of Records - Bank unable to produce 24-year-old enquiry records destroyed in normal course of business due to Respondent's late approach - Respondent failed to produce his own copies of depositions received during the fair enquiry - Tribunal held Bank responsible for non-production - High Court held that for stale claims the burden of producing documents or at least photocopies shifts to the claimant - Held - Tribunal committed material irregularity by not drawing adverse inference against the Respondent for non-preservation of his own records - Bank was not expected to preserve records for eternity under the hope of a future challenge - [Paras 19-22].

Labor Law - Domestic Enquiry vs Criminal Trial - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Dismissal - Respondent acquitted in criminal trial for same charges in 2013 - Contended acquittal as ground for reinstatement - High Court reiterated that tests and purposes of domestic enquiry and criminal prosecution are distinct - Domestic enquiry enforces discipline based on preponderance of probabilities while criminal trial punishes acts based on proof beyond reasonable doubt - Held - Mere acquittal in a criminal trial has no impact on the finding of guilt in a fair domestic enquiry - [Paras 31-32].

Labor Law - Misconduct - Standard of Integrity - Bank employee found guilty of misappropriating customer funds - Held - Bank employees are required to exercise a higher standard of honesty and integrity as per settled law - Punishment of dismissal for proven financial fraud is appropriate and not subject to interference on technical grounds of record unavailability after decades - [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 09/08/2024 and 23/01/2025 passed by Industrial Tribunal Pune are quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Constitutional Validity - Delimitation Act 2002 - Section 9(1)(c) - Challenge to reservation of Assembly constituency - Petitioner challenged the continued reservation of Kadipur Assembly seat for Scheduled Castes for nearly sixty years - Argued that Section 9(1)(c) is ultra vires for lack of a rotational principle resulting in stagnation of seats - Contended that this violates Articles 14 and 15 and deprives general category residents of a free choice of candidates - Court evaluated the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 in light of the bar under Article 329(a) - Observed that while Articles 330 and 332 mandate reservation based on population proportion they do not expressly provide for rotation for Assembly seats unlike Panchayat elections under Articles 243D and 243T - Held - Section 9(1)(c) falls within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 72 of List I and does not violate any fundamental rights - The methodology for identifying reserved seats is a policy matter for the legislature - Held - Writ petition is maintainable but challenge to the vires fails - [Paras 1-41].

Writ Law - Maintainability - Constitution of India - Article 329(a) - Judicial review of delimitation - Respondents argued that Article 329(a) bars court interference in delimitation of constituencies - Court relied on Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs Union of India - Held - Judicial review under Article 226 is permissible where interpretation of constitutional provisions is required or when a case of malafide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out - Article 329 cannot be construed to completely debar citizens from pleading grievances in a constitutional court - [Paras 12-18].

Civil Law - Fundamental Rights - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Test of unconstitutionality - Petitioner alleged that population based reservation is arbitrary - Court referred to Rajbala vs State of Haryana and K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India - Held - A statute cannot be declared unconstitutional merely on the ground that it is arbitrary - Enactments can be struck down only for lack of legislative competence or violation of Part III rights or other constitutional provisions - Section 9(1)(c) does not infringe any constitutional mandate - [Paras 28-32].

Writ Law - Separation of Powers - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Mandamus to legislate - Petitioner sought directions to the legislature to adopt a rotational roster for SC/ST seats - Held - Courts cannot direct the legislature to enact a particular law or read words into a statute where the language is plain - Providing for rotation is a legislative function and the court cannot assume the role of a supervisory authority over the wisdom of the legislature - [Paras 33-40].

Writ Law - Right to Vote - Constitution of India - Articles 325 and 326 - Scope of electoral rights - Petitioner claimed that reservation hampers his right to vote for a candidate of choice - Court referred to PUCL vs Union of India and Rajbala vs State of Haryana - Held - The right to vote and the right to be elected are constitutional rights subject to limitations and restrictions prescribed by law - A voter does not have an absolute right to dictate the terms of allotment of a constituency or insist that it be general - Constitutional rights must be read in harmony with Articles 330 and 332 - [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Issuance of Subpoena to Investigating Officer - Insurance Company filed an application seeking to summon the Investigating Officer of Bagalur Police Station to provide oral evidence and produce vehicle records of a lorry involved in an accident - Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner could obtain certified copies from the concerned authorities - Petitioner contended that despite best efforts they were unable to apply for certified copies as the insured and the driver were non-traceable and full particulars were unavailable - High Court observed that no prejudice would be caused to any party if the application for issuance of subpoena is allowed especially when the vehicle and insured are not traceable - Held - The impugned order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed - [Paras 1-7].

Civil Law - Procedure - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Time-bound disposal of claim petition - Respondents/claimants submitted that the MCOP case was pending since 2024 due to the pendency of the miscellaneous application and the current revision petition - High Court took note of the interest of the claimants and issued directions for the speedy disposal of the main claim - Held - Tribunal directed to dispose of MCOP No. 3191 of 2024 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 in MP No. 1 of 2025 set aside – Tribunal directed to issue summons to the Investigating Officer of Bagalur Police Station and dispose of the main claim petition within six months.

Criminal Law - Extension of Remand - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Independent Application of Mind by Public Prosecutor - Petitioner challenged order dated 05.05.2026 passed by X Additional District and Sessions Judge Anakapalli extending remand beyond 180 days - High Court found Public Prosecutor failed to file a valid report indicating independent satisfaction with investigation progress - Prosecution merely filed an application without disclosing consideration of investigation material or satisfaction with progress - Trial Court failed to assign special reasons for continued detention beyond 180 days and failed to inform the accused of the extension application - Held - Statutory requirement of a Public Prosecutor report is a vital safeguard for liberty and not a mere formality - Absence of such report or failure to put accused on notice renders the extension order vulnerable - Impugned order set aside and petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions - [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Law - Role of Public Prosecutor - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Statutory Duties - Public Prosecutor is an independent statutory authority and not a part of the investigating agency - Prosecutor is not a post office or forwarding agency for the investigating officer - Report for extension must disclose on its face the application of mind to investigation progress and specific reasons for further detention - Application of mind must be demonstrated through a formal report rather than mere reproduction of the investigating officer request - Held - Failure to provide an appropriate report results in an indefeasible right for the accused to be released on default bail - [Paras 3-6].

Decision: Revision Case allowed – Order dated 05.05.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2026 set aside – Petitioner/Accused No.1 enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and specific conditions including weekly appearance before the SHO and surrender of passport.