Labour Law – Termination Without Enquiry – The case involved the termination of employees by M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. without conducting a formal enquiry – The Labour Court upheld the termination, and the Industrial Court dismissed the revision applications – The High Court held that even in the absence of a prior enquiry, the employer can justify the termination by leading evidence before the Labour Court – The employer has the right to prove misconduct based on the available evidence, even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the termination orders – The petitioners' misconduct, including participation in an illegal strike, preventing others from joining duties, and creating an atmosphere of terror, justified their dismissal [Paras 12-13, 25-27].

Evidence of Misconduct – Assault on Management – The petitioners argued that the employer introduced evidence of misconduct (assault on management staff) that was not specified in the termination orders – However, the Court found that such evidence was permissible, as it was connected to the alleged creation of an atmosphere of terror, which was mentioned in the termination orders – The Court ruled that the evidence of assault corroborated the broader allegations of misconduct and was relevant to the case – The Court concluded that the additional evidence did not exceed the scope of the original reasons for termination [Paras 30-35].

Illegal Strike – Participation and Obstruction – The petitioners contended that they did not participate in the illegal strike or prevent others from joining duties – The Court dismissed this argument, finding that the evidence, including testimonies and reports from management witnesses, sufficiently proved that the petitioners not only participated in the illegal strike but also obstructed others from returning to work and created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation – The Court cited the seriousness of such misconduct, which warranted dismissal without the need for further enquiry [Paras 36-38].

Employer’s Right to Lead Evidence – Justification of Termination – The Court reaffirmed the employer's right to justify termination by leading evidence in cases where no prior enquiry was held – The employer is allowed to present all relevant evidence before the Labour Court, even if it was not initially part of the termination orders – This approach aligns with established legal principles, as outlined by the Supreme Court in several cases – The Court rejected the petitioners’ challenge, emphasizing that the employer's right to lead evidence serves the interests of both parties by ensuring a fair hearing [Paras 13-17, 26-33].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments – It upheld the concurrent findings of the Labour and Industrial Courts that the termination was justified based on the proven misconduct – The petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement or back wages, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs [Paras 38-39].
 

Trade Marks Law – Opposition to Registration – The appellant, "M/s Abbott GmbH," opposed the registration of the mark "MEBUFEN" by respondent No.2, "M/s Meridian Medicare Ltd.," on grounds of deceptive similarity with their mark "BRUFEN" – The Registrar of Trademarks dismissed the opposition and granted registration to "MEBUFEN" – The appellant contended that "MEBUFEN" and "BRUFEN" were phonetically and structurally similar, particularly since both marks contained the common element "FEN," derived from the chemical "Ibuprofen" – The appellant argued that this similarity would likely confuse the public, especially given the identical medicinal nature of the products [Paras 1-6].

Deceptive Similarity – Analysis of Competing Marks – The Court analyzed the principles of deceptive similarity as laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and F. Hoffmann-LA Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd. – It reiterated that marks must be considered as a whole and not through a meticulous, letter-by-letter comparison – The Court noted that the common suffix "FEN" was derived from a non-proprietary name, "Ibuprofen," and thus could not be monopolized by the appellant – The marks "BRUFEN" and "MEBUFEN" were found to be visually, structurally, and phonetically dissimilar due to the distinct prefixes "BRU" and "MEBU" – The mere use of "FEN" in both marks was insufficient to establish confusion or deceptive similarity [Paras 6-12, 13-14].

Reliance on Previous Cases – Distinction from Appellant’s Precedents – The appellant relied on the judgments in Boots Company PLC v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., where competing marks were found to be deceptively similar – The Court held that those cases involved marks with clear structural and phonetic similarity, which was not evident in the present case – Therefore, those precedents did not support the appellant's case, as "BRUFEN" and "MEBUFEN" were not similarly confusing [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks – It concluded that the marks "BRUFEN" and "MEBUFEN" were not deceptively similar, and no confusion would arise in the market from their concurrent use [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Copyright Infringement – Registration Requirement – The primary issue in this revision application was whether the registration of copyright is mandatory prior to initiating criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act, 1957 – The applicant was accused of duplicating books published by Relx India Pvt. Ltd. without authorization – The trial court framed charges under Sections 63, 63B, and 65 of the Copyright Act, leading the applicant to challenge the framing of charges – The High Court held that registration of copyright is not mandatory for initiating criminal prosecution – The Copyright Act, unlike the Trade Marks Act, does not require prior registration of copyright to enforce rights under the law [Paras 9-14].

Search and Seizure – Allegations of Improper Procedure – The applicant challenged the legality of the search and seizure conducted at his premises, arguing that the process was improper and citing earlier judgments involving liaison with police authorities – The Court, however, found that the facts of the present case were distinct from those cited by the applicant and did not support the claim of procedural impropriety – It was noted that the applicant had been provided the opportunity to challenge these issues during cross-examination [Paras 15-16].

Power of Attorney – Authority to File Complaint – The applicant also argued that the first informant, Saxena, was merely a power of attorney holder and not the copyright holder, thereby questioning his authority to lodge the complaint – The Court dismissed this contention, holding that the law permits any person authorized by the copyright holder to initiate legal action, and the registration of copyright with the U.S. authorities was sufficient for this purpose [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Revision Application Dismissed – The Court found no merit in the applicant’s arguments regarding the mandatory nature of copyright registration or the alleged procedural irregularities during the search and seizure – The application for quashing the charges was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated [Paras 14, 16-17].

Service Law – Transfer – Allegation of Insubordination – Transfer Quashed – The petitioners, Assistant Managers in different branches of Indian Overseas Bank, challenged their transfer orders issued after a review meeting where one of the petitioners raised issues regarding UPI transaction delays – The bank alleged that the petitioners committed acts of insubordination by challenging the Regional Manager – The Court held that the transfers were issued in lieu of punishment without disciplinary proceedings, violating the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 16(1), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Held: The transfer orders were quashed as punitive actions disguised as administrative transfers [Paras 17-21, 28-32].

Punitive Transfers – Malice in Law – Lack of Disciplinary Action – The Court observed that, although the respondents contended the transfers were based on administrative exigencies, the timeline of events and the lack of any disciplinary proceedings indicated that the transfers were punitive in nature – The Court relied on Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India [(2009) 2 SCC 592] to hold that transfers made in lieu of punishment, without just cause, are illegal [Paras 21, 28-32].

Impact on Petitioners' Fundamental Rights – Violation of Transfer Policy – The petitioners contended that the transfers violated the bank's transfer policy, which requires an opportunity to improve performance before transferring staff for non-performance – The Court held that no performance issues were raised, and the transfers were not in compliance with the policy – It found the transfers to be arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights [Paras 12-15, 20].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Transfer orders quashed – Respondents directed to refrain from initiating further proceedings without following proper disciplinary measures [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Witchcraft Allegation – Sections 302, 201 IPC – Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act – Appellant convicted for the murder of his sister-in-law, branded as a witch – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and alleged confession – Trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment – Appellant appealed, contending weak evidence, lack of eye-witnesses, and unreliability of confession and weapon recovery – High Court allowed appeal, granting benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence [Paras 9, 10, 11].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Weakness of Extra-Judicial Confession – P.W. 2 (informant and husband of the deceased) corroborated the FIR, stating his brother (the appellant) murdered his wife due to witchcraft allegations – However, extra-judicial confession relied on P.W. 6 (mother-in-law of deceased) and P.W. 7 (father-in-law) was not robust as it was made before police and not in front of credible witnesses – High Court deemed such confession weak and unreliable as per established legal standards [Paras 7, 11].

Circumstantial Evidence – Lack of Strong Chain – Recovery of Weapon – Tangi allegedly recovered from the appellant’s house with blood stains – However, P.W. 6 denied witnessing the recovery, and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) failed to establish the recovery’s link with the appellant’s confession – Court emphasized that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and inconsistent, failing to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Confession and recovery were insufficiently corroborated [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Homicidal Death Proven but Guilt Not Established – Autopsy confirmed lacerated injuries and cause of death as head injury – Death was homicidal, but lack of direct evidence and inconsistency in the recovery of the murder weapon undermined the prosecution's case – Court reiterated the need for stringent scrutiny in cases based on circumstantial evidence, citing principles from Kalinga v. State of Karnataka (2024) [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted due to benefit of doubt – Appellant to be released immediately if not required in any other case [Para 11].
 

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction under Section 15-C – Appeal – Procedural Violations – Acquittal Granted – Procedural Lapses – Conviction Under Section 15-C of NDPS Act Set Aside – Appellant Avtar Singh’s appeal against conviction allowed due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act – Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,50,000/-; an additional one-year rigorous imprisonment in default of fine payment – High Court found significant procedural lapses including lack of homogeneous mixing, absence of proper inventory procedures under Section 52-A, and issues with sample handling and FSL reporting – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to these procedural deficiencies [Paras 28-38].

Homogeneous Mixing of Contraband – Incomplete Compliance – Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal - High Court noted the absence of homogeneous mixing of the poppy husk seized, stored in 40 separate bags – No evidence provided to confirm that the bags were mixed prior to sampling, which is crucial to ensure a representative sample for testing – The Court observed that non-compliance with this requirement left room for doubt as to the validity of the sample tested [Paras 29, 31(i)].

Section 52-A NDPS Act – Inventory and Magistrate Certification – Failure in Mandatory Procedure - No inventory prepared as required under Section 52-A(2) detailing the narcotics’ description, quantity, packing mode, or identification marks – No application submitted to a Magistrate to certify the inventory or allow sample extraction in their presence – Court emphasized that compliance with Section 52-A is essential to uphold the evidentiary value of seized contraband – Held: Procedural non-compliance undercuts the prosecution's case and entitles the appellant to benefit of doubt [Paras 30, 31(ii)].

Sample Handling and FSL Reporting – Procedural Discrepancies - Discrepancies noted in the FSL report, which lacked details of sample seals or seal impressions on cloth parcels, raising doubts on sample integrity – Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) stated samples were bulk-tied in cloth, while the FSL report lacked mention of seals or impressions, weakening the reliability of the forensic findings [Paras 21, 31(iii), 31(iv)].

Non-Presentation of Residual Bulk Samples in Court – Evidentiary Gap – Acquittal - Failure to present the residue from the bulk poppy husk seizure during trial along with the FSL report – Court observed this as a major gap in evidentiary procedure, which precluded proper verification of whether the tested samples were truly representative of the entire seizure – Held: Non-production of residual samples in court creates sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal [Paras 31(v)].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside - Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 15-C of NDPS Act are set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released if not wanted in any other case – Any fine paid to be refunded as per law – Case property to be disposed of in line with legal procedure after the appeal period expires [Paras 32-38].

Anticipatory Bail – Non-Bailable Warrant and Proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Exceptional Circumstances for Granting Bail – The applicant sought anticipatory bail after non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 CrPC were issued against him in a fraud case involving the sale of government land. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court held that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail after issuance of a proclamation if exceptional circumstances warrant it. Considering that the applicant was not in possession of the disputed land and had initiated civil proceedings for cancellation of the sale, the Court granted anticipatory bail – Held: Anticipatory bail granted in the interest of justice, subject to conditions [Paras 19-25].

Fraud in Land Sale – Victim of Fraud – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The applicant was alleged to have been involved in a fraudulent transaction concerning government land. However, the Court found that the applicant had paid part of the sale consideration and initiated proceedings for cancellation of the fraudulent sale agreement. The co-accused, including the seller, had already been granted bail. In light of these facts, the applicant was deemed to be a victim of the fraud, and anticipatory bail was granted – Held: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 22-24].

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail – The Court imposed several conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, including regular appearance before the trial court, non-interference with the investigation, and not leaving the country without permission. The Court emphasized that the anticipatory bail was subject to compliance with these conditions – Held: Bail granted with conditions [Paras 26].

Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, subject to conditions to ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation and compliance with court orders [Paras 25-26].

Excise Law – Exemption Notification – Rebate Claim on Exported Goods – The petitioner challenged the rejection of their rebate claim on biscuits exported out of India – The petitioner had voluntarily paid excise duty on the goods exported, arguing that since the biscuits did not bear a retail sale price in rupees, they were not covered by the exemption notification – Held: Goods exported without a retail sale price in rupees are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2006 – The petitioner was entitled to pay duty and claim a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [Paras 13-14, 20].

Article 265 of the Constitution – Retention of Duty Paid Without Authority of Law – The revenue contended that the goods were exempt under Notification No. 3/2006 and that the petitioner was not required to pay duty, thereby not entitled to a rebate – The Court held that if goods were exempt, retaining the duty paid without the authority of law would violate Article 265 of the Constitution – The Court rejected the revenue’s argument, emphasizing that duty paid without legal obligation cannot be retained [Paras 15-16].

Cenvat Credit and Tribunal Decision – Consistency in Rebate Claims – The petitioner’s earlier rebate claims had been allowed by appellate authorities and accepted by the revenue – The Court noted that the revenue could not take a contrary position after accepting similar claims in the past – The tribunal’s order allowing the petitioner’s appeal was also accepted by the revenue, further supporting the petitioner’s claim for a rebate [Paras 17-19, 23-24].

Decision – The petitioner’s claim for a rebate of excise duty paid on exported biscuits was allowed – The order of the Revisional Authority was quashed – The respondents were directed to grant the rebate claims [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Anticipatory Bail – Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(k), 354(A), 354(B), 354(C), 506 IPC and Section 66E of the IT Act – Petitioner accused of repeated sexual assault on a maid working at his house – Alleged crimes include sexual advances, assault, recording without consent, and threats – Sessions court rejected anticipatory bail, and the High Court upheld the decision, citing prima facie evidence and risk of absconding [Paras 1, 11, 16].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Explanation and Legal Precedents – Petitioner argued that the complaint filed in May 2024 for incidents occurring in 2021-2022 is delayed, rendering it unreliable – Defense referred to precedents where delay in sexual assault complaints led to acquittals – However, the court found the delay explained, as the victim feared societal stigma and her daughter's marriage prospects, and rejected the argument based on prior case law [Paras 5, 9, 14].

Prima Facie Case – Forensic Evidence and Video Recordings – The charge sheet included Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports confirming that videos of the alleged incidents had not been tampered with – Both the petitioner's and victim's voices were matched in the recordings – The court held that the evidence satisfied the ingredients of offences under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 376(2)(k) (dominance), 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (intent to disrobe), and 354C (voyeurism) IPC [Paras 9, 10].

Risk of Absconding and Witness Tampering – Petitioner stayed in Germany for 35 days, avoiding investigation – Court expressed concern over flight risk and potential threats to witnesses if released – Based on the petitioner’s prior attempts to block circulation of incriminating videos, the court concluded that the petitioner had the propensity to repeat the offense and influence witnesses [Paras 6, 11, 15].

Court's Discretion in Denying Bail – The High Court referenced the Supreme Court’s guidelines for bail in serious offenses, including the gravity of the accusations, severity of punishment, and risk of flight – Citing Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, the court held that the petitioner’s influence and prior conduct made him ineligible for anticipatory bail [Paras 11, 12].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the strong prima facie evidence, and the potential risks associated with releasing the petitioner on bail – Observations made for the purpose of bail will not influence pending proceedings [Paras 15, 16].