Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Authority of Lending and Borrowing Entities – Rule 18A of Kerala Police Departmental Rules – The petitioner, a Kerala Police Inspector on deputation as an Immigration Officer, faced departmental proceedings by the borrowing authority (BOI) – Held: Rule 18A empowers both lending and borrowing authorities to conduct disciplinary proceedings for misconduct during deputation; however, final actions such as penalty imposition rest with the lending authority upon repatriation – Proceedings were validly concluded by the lending authority after repatriation, dismissing the petitioner’s claim for exclusive jurisdiction of BOI [Paras 8-13].

Bias and Procedural Fairness – Role of Presenting Officer in Enquiries – The petitioner alleged bias, claiming the presenting officer aimed to shift blame – Held: No rule mandates an unbiased presenting officer; unless bias is proven against the enquiry officer, procedural fairness is presumed – The Tribunal’s rejection of bias claims was upheld [Paras 14-16].

Comparative Disciplinary Outcomes – Exoneration of a Co-accused Officer – The petitioner argued that another officer similarly charged was exonerated – Held: The exoneration of a co-accused does not invalidate separate findings of misconduct against another officer; punishment proportionality was confirmed [Paras 17-19].

Decision: The petition is dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s order validating the disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed on the petitioner.
 

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Application of Twin Test – Section 45 of PMLA – Bail Granted - The applicant, arrested under the PMLA for alleged disproportionate assets amounting to 204% of known income, sought bail. The Court, after reviewing the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case. Since the chargesheet in the predicate offence had not yet been filed, the Court held that the investigation was incomplete and the arrest based on presumptions was premature. Bail was granted with conditions [Paras 12-15, 35-38].

Disproportionate Assets – Presumption of Guilt – Cannot Be Basis for Arrest - The Court observed that in cases of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the critical element is the failure to satisfactorily account for assets. Without a concluded investigation into the predicate offence, presuming the entire amount as proceeds of crime under the PMLA was unjustified. The applicant could not be arrested merely on suspicion without conclusive evidence of assets being illicitly gained [Paras 25-28, 32].

Statements Recorded Under Section 50 of PMLA – Not Admissible When Recorded Post-Arrest - The Court held that statements recorded after the applicant's arrest could not be relied upon to oppose bail. Such statements, recorded when the accused was in custody, were inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. This further weakened the case against the applicant [Paras 40-43].

Final Decision – Bail Application Allowed with Conditions - The Court granted bail to the applicant, noting that the continued incarceration without a chargesheet in the predicate offence would result in prolonged detention without trial. The applicant was ordered to furnish a bond of ₹50,000 and follow strict reporting conditions with the Directorate of Enforcement [Paras 50-52].

Criminal Law - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction Modified for 1st Accused - The appellants were convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court, relying on circumstantial evidence, concluded that the 1st accused caused the death of the deceased by inflicting fatal stab injuries. However, the Court observed that the act of the 1st accused was provoked by the deceased during a card game, thus applying Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction of the 1st accused was modified to Section 304 Part I IPC, reducing the sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment [Paras 34-36, 40-41].

Common Intention – Absence of Sufficient Evidence – Acquittal of Accused 2 and 5 - The prosecution failed to establish that accused 2 and 5 shared a common intention with the 1st accused to commit murder. There was no direct or circumstantial evidence proving their involvement in the infliction of fatal injuries. Their mere presence at the scene was not sufficient to infer shared intent. Accordingly, the conviction of accused 2 and 5 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside, and they were acquitted [Paras 27, 33].

Doctrine of Grave and Sudden Provocation – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction for Murder Converted to Culpable Homicide - The Court held that the 1st accused acted under grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased's foul play and physical assault during the card game. Therefore, the offense fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of murder under Section 302 IPC [Paras 35-36].

Decision – Conviction of Accused 1 Modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Accused 2 and 5 Acquitted - The conviction and sentence of accused 1 were altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, with a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000. Accused 2 and 5 were acquitted of all charges under Section 386(b)(i) CrPC [Paras 40-41].

Patent Infringement – Ad-Interim Injunction – Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Denial Due to Lack of Claim Mapping - The plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant for allegedly infringing their patents on Pertuzumab through the product “Sigrima.” The Court held that in patent infringement cases, a prima facie case must be established, including claim construction and claim mapping. Since the plaintiffs failed to present claim mapping, an essential step in determining the scope of infringement, the injunction was denied [Paras 8-12, 30-35].

Biologics and Biosimilars – Differentiation in Scope of Patent Protection - The Court emphasized the critical importance of claim mapping in cases involving biologics and biosimilars. Mere similarity in composition or function does not automatically establish patent infringement without precise mapping of the patent’s claims against the allegedly infringing product. The plaintiffs’ inability to perform this essential task led to the dismissal of the injunction application [Paras 22-24, 33-36].

Conduct of Defendant – Breach of Assurance Irrelevant Without Claim Mapping - The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached an earlier assurance by launching the product “Sigrima” despite ongoing litigation. The Court noted that while the defendant’s conduct may raise concerns, such issues are secondary when the fundamental requirement of claim mapping is not satisfied [Paras 38-39].

Decision – Application for Interim Injunction Dismissed - The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate patent infringement due to the absence of claim mapping. As a result, the interim injunction was denied, and the previous ad-interim order was vacated [Paras 40-41].

Objections to Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Section 21 CPC – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner challenged the ex parte decree, raising objections regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court, Jammu. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 21 CPC, objections to pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest stage, before the settlement of issues. Since the petitioners had failed to raise this objection during the trial, they could not do so at the appellate or revisional stage [Paras 10-12, 17-19].

Condonation of Delay – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Petition Dismissed - The petitioners also sought to challenge the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing to set aside an ex parte decree. The Court held that an appeal against the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC. Therefore, the petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K was not maintainable, as an efficacious remedy by way of appeal was available [Paras 25-28].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Liberty to Pursue Appeal - The Court dismissed both petitions, leaving the petitioners free to avail themselves of appropriate remedies, including filing an appeal against the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The respondent was directed to pay court fees on the decretal amount as per the applicable Court Fees Act [Para 30].

Election Law - No Confidence Motion – Compliance with Section 54(2)(c) of Odisha Municipality Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioners challenged the validity of a notice issued by the Collector calling for a vote of no confidence against the Chairperson of Purusottampur N.A.C., arguing that the notice was not accompanied by the requisition and resolution as mandated by Section 54(2)(c) of the Odisha Municipality Act. The Court held that the service of the notice, along with the requisition and resolution, was duly complied with through affixture after the petitioners refused to accept the notice. The procedural requirements under Section 54(2)(c) were satisfied, and the challenge was dismissed [Paras 10-12, 24-28].

Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners Not Entitled to Relief - The Court observed that the petitioners had suppressed material facts by not disclosing the affixation of the notice along with the requisition and resolution at their residences, despite being aware of it. Referring to the principle of clean hands, the Court denied any relief to the petitioners for their failure to approach the Court with full disclosure of facts [Paras 30-32].

Service by Afixation – Validity of Notice - The petitioners contended that only the notice was affixed without the requisite documents. However, the Court rejected this argument, relying on the process server’s report and holding that the notice along with the requisition and resolution was duly served by affixation in the presence of witnesses. The service was deemed valid under the statute [Paras 28-29].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the procedural requirements of Section 54(2)(c) of the Odisha Municipality Act were complied with. The petitioners’ suppression of material facts and non-compliance with the statutory provisions led to the dismissal of the petitions. The interim order was vacated [Paras 32-34].

Theft of Jewellery – Alleged Admission of Liability – Civil Recovery - The appellant claimed recovery of Rs. 15,00,000, asserting that the respondent had stolen her jewellery and acknowledged liability through handwritten confessions and cheques. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the appellant's claim of theft unbelievable. However, the High Court reversed this, holding that the appellant had proven her case on a preponderance of probabilities based on the respondent's written and videographed admissions, cheques, and absence of cross-examination [Paras 10-12, 21-24].

Evidence – Videographed Admission – Respondent's Failure to Deny Genuineness - The Court gave significant weight to the respondent’s written confessions and the videography of his admission. The respondent did not deny the genuineness of these documents or the video recording but claimed the confession was fraudulently obtained, a defense deemed vague and unsupported by evidence. The trial court erred in disregarding this material evidence [Paras 25-27, 29-31].

Cheques Issued for Repayment – No Proof of Security Cheques - The respondent issued four cheques to repay the appellant for the stolen jewellery. His claim that these cheques were given as security was dismissed by the Court due to the absence of any corroborating evidence. The Court ruled that the cheques were part of the repayment of the appellant's claim [Paras 34-36].

Final Decision – Suit for Recovery Allowed with Interest - The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed that the appellant was entitled to recover Rs. 15,00,000 with pendentelite and future interest at 8% per annum, along with costs. The appellant successfully established her claim of theft and repayment based on admissions, documentary, and oral evidence [Paras 37-40].

Environmental Law – Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment – Article 21 – The Court expressed concern over the proposed deforestation of 1.19 lakh trees in Baran District, which could severely affect the local ecology and climate by increasing carbon emissions and threatening biodiversity – The Right to a Healthy Environment is part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution – The State has a responsibility to protect and preserve the environment and must explore alternative solutions to avoid large-scale deforestation [Paras 2-4].

Climate Change – Adverse Effects of Deforestation – Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India, the Court emphasized that citizens have the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, and that the destruction of forests near protected areas could exacerbate climate-related impacts such as carbon emissions and biodiversity loss – The Court highlighted the importance of preserving forests and avoiding displacement of flora and fauna [Para 4.1].

Public Interest – Need for Alternatives and Environmental Safeguards – The Court directed the State and Union Government to explore alternative land options for the project and to consider afforestation in the same region to mitigate carbon loss – No trees to be cut for at least 15 days, pending further orders [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Suo Moto PIL initiated – The Court treated the matter as a Public Interest Litigation and appointed Amicus Curiae to assist in the case – The respondents were directed to submit a detailed response, exploring alternatives to tree cutting and afforestation measures [Paras 5-6].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Fraud Allegations – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of visa fraud and cheating – Court held: The petitioner had joined the investigation and provided all relevant documents – No recovery was to be effected from the petitioner, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary – Bail was granted with conditions [Paras 1-5].

Multiple FIRs – Consideration of Criminal Antecedents – The petitioner was involved in another FIR under Section 420 IPC, but was already on bail in that case – The Court noted that as per the ruling in Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab (2023), criminal antecedents alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail – The appreciation of evidence should be based on the specific case at hand [Paras 4].

Decision – Anticipatory bail granted – The petitioner was directed to join the investigation within one week and to furnish personal and surety bonds – Failure to comply with the court’s directions would result in the cancellation of the bail order [Para 5].