Default Bail – Extension of Detention under UAPA – Prosecution sought an extension of investigation beyond 90 days—Trial court granted the extension without providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused—Held: Mandatory notice and presence of accused are required while considering an extension under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA—Denial of default bail on the basis of an invalid extension violates Article 21 of the Constitution—Appeal allowed, and bail granted [Paras 8, 14, 18].

Investigation Delay – Right to Liberty – Prosecution failed to demonstrate due diligence in completing the investigation within the statutory period—Held: The right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed arbitrarily—Extension of detention cannot be granted mechanically—Prolonged detention without substantial progress in investigation unjustified—Bail granted [Paras 11, 25, 26].

Judicial Review of Prosecution’s Conduct – Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA – The trial court failed to record specific reasons justifying the need for further detention—Held: Extension under Section 43D(2)(b) is an exception and must be based on valid grounds—The court must be satisfied that further detention is necessary for completing the investigation—Failure to record specific reasons renders the extension order unsustainable—Bail granted [Paras 13, 31].

Constitutional Safeguards – Procedural Fairness – Accused was neither notified nor given an opportunity to object to the extension application—Held: Violation of the principles of natural justice—An accused’s right to default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21—Denial of such bail due to procedural lapses is illegal—Bail granted [Paras 16, 29].

Failure to Conduct Prompt Investigation – The prosecution delayed crucial steps such as witness examination and forensic analysis—Held: Prosecution cannot seek an extension if investigation proceeds at a sluggish pace—Arbitrary delay in investigation cannot justify continued detention—Default bail granted [Paras 24, 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed—Orders extending investigation and denying default bail set aside—Appellants granted bail on execution of personal bonds and sureties—Court reaffirms that procedural safeguards under UAPA must be strictly adhered to.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – The petitioner sought to quash the FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 61(2) of the BNS Act, 2023, on the ground that no investor had complained, and the allegations were based on assumptions – Held: The FIR discloses cognizable offences, and the allegations of fraudulent inducement and unsustainable business practices require thorough investigation. The court refused to interfere at this stage [Paras 18-24].

Economic Offences – Public Interest – Economic offences like Ponzi schemes have wide-reaching implications for public interest and require cautious judicial scrutiny. The petitioner’s business model involving rotation of funds and extraordinary returns raises suspicion of a bubble-like Ponzi scheme – Held: The court must be cautious while dealing with cases of economic offences that may affect a large section of society [Paras 24-26].

Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory – The petitioner argued that no preliminary inquiry was conducted as required under the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari – Held: When prima facie allegations of cognizable offences exist, police authorities are not bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR [Para 25].

Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Intention and Entrustment – The petitioner contended that cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot coexist and that there was no fraudulent inducement or dishonest intention – Held: The allegations of rotating funds to provide monthly returns to investors by luring them with extraordinary benefits prima facie indicate fraudulent intention and breach of trust [Paras 23-24].

Dismissal of Petition – Investigation Required – The allegations in the FIR, including unsustainable business models, deceitful inducement, and breach of trust, require detailed investigation to uncover the nature and extent of the alleged fraudulent activities – Held: The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed [Paras 26-28].

Rectification – Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act – Cancellation of Mark – Petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use, goodwill, and reputation of the mark "RPG" – Respondent’s mark held to be an infringement of the petitioner’s well-known trademark – Held: Registration No. 2778255 in Class 23 canceled for bad faith adoption and likelihood of confusion [Paras 22-23].

Well-Known Marks – Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act – Protection Against Dissimilar Goods – Petitioner’s mark "RPG" deemed well-known – Protection extended beyond similar goods – Held: Even if goods differ, the identical mark can cause confusion, warranting rectification [Paras 12-14].

Passing Off – Bad Faith and Dishonest Adoption – Respondent derived the mark "RPG" from petitioner’s established goodwill – Evidence of intentional adoption to leverage petitioner’s reputation – Held: Honest adoption not proven; mark liable for cancellation [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Registration No. 2778255 canceled – Directions issued to Trade Marks Registry for notification and compliance [Para 23].

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Registration in Identical Classes - Passing Off – Phonetic, Structural, and Visual Similarity – Plaintiff established prior use and goodwill over the trademark "INDI" – Defendant’s use of "INDEED" found to be deceptively similar, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers – Defendant’s lack of bona fide adoption of the mark "INDEED" highlighted by the identical trade dress and absence of justification for the new mark – Held: Ex-parte injunction made absolute; balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff – Defendant restrained from using "INDEED" or any mark phonetically, visually, or structurally similar to "INDI" [Paras 28-31, 49-51].

Trademark Infringement – Registration in Identical Classes – Defendant’s registration in unrelated classes irrelevant to the plaintiff’s claim – Plaintiff demonstrated exclusivity over "INDI" through extensive use and sales figures – Held: Plaintiff’s rights as prior user superior to defendant’s subsequent registration – Decision: Injunction upheld against use of "INDEED" for measuring tapes [Paras 22, 49-52].

Color Combination – Role in Passing Off – Plaintiff disclaimed exclusivity over "blue and white" color combination – Defendant’s use of similar trade dress along with the mark "INDEED" created consumer confusion – Held: Trade dress relevant in conjunction with the deceptively similar mark – Decision: Passing off established; injunction upheld [Paras 18-19, 37-38].

Misrepresentation and Suppression – Allegation of Suppression Rejected – Defendant alleged suppression regarding its trademark registrations in classes 7 and 8 – Held: Plaintiff disclosed all relevant information regarding Class 9 goods, while other class registrations were immaterial to the dispute – No misrepresentation found – Decision: Defendant’s allegations dismissed [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Ex-parte ad interim injunction dated 28/08/2024 is made absolute – Defendant restrained from using the mark "INDEED" or any similar mark in relation to measuring tapes or allied goods.
Defendant’s applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and for release of seized goods are dismissed.
Observations confined to interim applications and will not affect the final adjudication of the suit.
 

Taxation Law - Direct Tax – Computation of Disputed Tax – Applicability of 100% Rate – Section 3, DTVSV Act – Circular No. 21/2020 – Petitioner’s case mistakenly treated as a “search case,” and disputed tax computed at 125% instead of 100% – Respondents conceded the error, acknowledging it as a "non-search case" – Held: Tax to be computed at 100%, and revised Form-3 must be issued – Directions issued for compliance [Paras 37-40].

DTVSV Act – Inclusion of Additional Grounds in Disputed Tax – Section 3, Section 4, and Circular No. 21/2020 – Petitioner sought inclusion of an additional ground challenging LTCG additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act – Attempt made after 31/01/2020, the specified date under the DTVSV Act – Held: Inclusion of such grounds post facto is impermissible, as the Petitioner failed to appeal the additions in time and paid tax voluntarily – Claim for benefits under the DTVSV Scheme rejected [Paras 28-34, 36].

Income Tax – LTCG under Section 68 – Voluntary Disclosure – Addition of Rs. 2,02,50,919/- towards LTCG by Petitioner voluntarily conceded in 2016 – No appeal filed against such additions till the specified date under the DTVSV Act – Held: Petitioner’s belated attempt to create a dispute is inconsistent with the scheme’s objectives – Challenge dismissed [Paras 29-33].

CBDT Circulars – Binding Nature – Circular No. 21/2020 – Respondents failed to timely issue revised Form-3 reflecting the correct tax computation at 100% – Held: Circulars are binding on tax authorities – Directions issued for compliance with the undertaking given in the affidavit [Paras 39-41].

Decision – Rule Partly Absolute – Petition dismissed as regards inclusion of additional grounds in disputed tax – Petition allowed as regards computation of tax at 100% – Revised Form-3 to be issued within 30 days, with consequential benefits [Para 42].
 

Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act – Necessity of Maintenance Claim – Non-maintainability Without Section 23(1) Basis – The appellant, mother of the writ petitioners, sought eviction of her sons and their families under the Senior Citizens Act, claiming the property was her deceased husband's self-acquired asset – The Tribunal ordered eviction without examining competing property claims or fulfilling the conditions under Section 23(1) of the Act – Held: Eviction is permissible only as an incident of maintenance or protection of senior citizens under Section 23(1), and not otherwise – Decision of the Single Judge setting aside the eviction order upheld [Paras 21-22].

Partition Suit and Ownership Dispute – Pre-existing Civil Proceedings Impact on Eviction Claims – The property in dispute was already part of a pending partition suit filed by the writ petitioners – The Tribunal's decision ignored the pendency of civil proceedings and the principle that property disputes must be resolved in civil courts, not under the Senior Citizens Act – Held: Tribunal's order of eviction legally untenable, and competing claims must be adjudicated in the partition suit [Paras 16, 22-23].

Harmonization of Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act – Limited Scope of Eviction – Citing S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act must balance the rights under the Domestic Violence Act or other competing claims – In the absence of maintenance claims or valid grounds under Section 23(1), eviction is impermissible [Paras 21, 23].

Delay in Filing Appeal – Procedural Condonation – Delay of 17 days in filing the appeal due to the time taken for uploading the judgment condoned in the interest of justice [Paras 3-4].

Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's order that quashed the eviction direction issued under the Senior Citizens Act. The property dispute is to be resolved in the pending partition suit.
 

Service Law – Seniority – Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment – Petitioners challenged appointments of direct recruits as Technical Officers, alleging seniority of promotees was unfairly impacted due to delays in convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Petitioners contended that as per the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980, and Office Memoranda, their seniority should have been fixed based on their eligibility dates. Held: Seniority cannot be finalized until representations of aggrieved promotees against the provisional common seniority list are considered – Court directed the respondent-authorities to address grievances before finalizing seniority [Paras 3-6].

Service Law – DPC Delays and Seniority – Petitioners alleged that DPC meetings were not held within the prescribed timeframe, causing undue delays in their promotion. The Court observed that the Government of India’s Office Memoranda mandate timely convening of DPC meetings. Held: Respondents must consider representations from the petitioners regarding the provisional seniority list and resolve issues arising due to DPC delays before finalizing the list [Paras 3-6].

Judicial Review – Procedural Irregularities in Seniority Fixation – Petitioners challenged their placement below direct recruits in the provisional common seniority list. The Court noted that the petitioners had neither challenged the appointment orders of direct recruits nor sought service benefits for the delayed promotion period but only contested seniority. Held: The petitioners are entitled to submit objections to the seniority list, and respondents must afford personal hearings before finalizing it [Paras 6].

Decision – Writ petition disposed of with directions – Petitioners allowed to submit individual representations against the provisional seniority list within two weeks – Respondents directed to consider representations and finalize the seniority list within two months, after granting personal hearings, if requested [Paras 6].
 

Writ – Service Law - Challenged the non-continuance of her deputation – No Vested Right to Continue – A deputationist has no enforceable right to remain on deputation beyond the discretion of the lending or borrowing department. The borrowing department retains the authority to repatriate the deputationist at any time. Held: Repatriation order valid [Para 11].

Interpretation of Section 75 – Reorganisation Act – Applicability Limited to Public Facilities – Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act pertains to the continuation of facilities for the public in Tenth Schedule institutions and does not extend to service conditions of employees. Held: The provision does not apply to petitioner’s superannuation [Para 13].

Section 79 – Repatriation Order Valid Under Proviso – Section 79 enables competent authorities to pass specific orders affecting the continuation of an officer in their post after reorganisation. The petitioner’s repatriation was lawful under this section. Held: No statutory right to challenge repatriation [Para 15].

Interim Orders – No Automatic Right to Salary – An interim order granted in favor of the petitioner does not confer a right to salary if the underlying claim lacks merit or a legal basis. Held: Petitioner not entitled to salary for the claimed period [Para 16].

Decision: The Writ Petition and Contempt Case were dismissed. The petitioner had no legal, statutory, or constitutional right to remain on deputation or claim salary for the disputed period.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Offence of Mischief under IPC – Section 430 read with Section 34 – Petitioners, as office bearers of an apartment owners’ welfare association, were accused of wrongfully disconnecting water supply to the defacto complainant's rental flat for non-payment of arrears. Held: The alleged disconnection of water supply, which was reconnected after arrears were paid, does not constitute mischief under Section 425 of IPC as defined for Section 430 IPC. No unlawful or dishonest intention to diminish water supply was established – Proceedings quashed [Paras 14-23].

Role of Associations in Water Supply Management – Reasonable Actions – The Court acknowledged that an association managing apartments has the right to collect water charges from members and take necessary actions, such as disconnection for non-payment, provided procedural safeguards are followed. Held: Disputes over water charges are civil in nature and do not attract criminal liability under IPC in this case [Paras 19-20].

Mischief under IPC – Temporary Interference vs. Permanent Diminution of Water Supply – Court reiterated that temporary stoppage of water supply does not amount to "mischief" under IPC unless it is done with dishonest or unlawful intent to cause injury or loss. Reference made to Uttam Basu v. Geeta Mullick [(1987) 1 Crimes 512 (Cal)] to emphasize this principle [Paras 21-23].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Court examined whether prima facie materials existed to sustain the prosecution. Held: Allegations in the FIR and subsequent evidence did not justify continuation of proceedings – Quashing allowed [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 687/2023 quashed – Defacto complainant directed to pay pending water charges to ensure uninterrupted supply – Association permitted to take lawful action for non-payment if required [Para 25].