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].

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.
 

Criminal Law – Bail in Economic Offences – Forgery and Cheating – Prima Facie Case – FIR registered against the accused for furnishing forged bank guarantees (BGs) and misappropriating goods worth ₹3.06 crores supplied on credit – Chargesheet alleged that the Applicant, as Managing Director, supervised the furnishing of the forged BGs – High Court held: Evidence against the Applicant largely documentary and to be tested during trial – Pre-trial detention unnecessary in the absence of custodial investigation – Bail granted [Paras 6–9].

Economic Offences – Pre-Trial Detention – Right to Personal Liberty – Applicant in custody for 10 months; no likelihood of trial concluding expeditiously – High Court observed: Pre-trial detention amounts to punitive action and violates personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail is the rule and jail the exception – Refusal of bail without compelling reasons violates principles of proportionality and justice – Reliance placed on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 [Paras 7–8].

Grounds for Bail – No Flight Risk or Evidence Tampering – Court noted: Chargesheet filed, co-accused not arrested, no material suggesting Applicant would interfere with trial, tamper evidence, or abscond – Detention unnecessary for investigative purposes – Bail granted subject to conditions ensuring attendance at trial [Paras 6–9].

Judicial Principles – Bail in Economic Offences – Court reiterated: Seriousness of economic offences alone does not justify denial of bail – Prolonged incarceration without trial violates principles of fairness and proportionality – Presence of the accused can be secured through bail conditions – Reliance placed on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 [Paras 7, 8].

Decision:  Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on furnishing bail bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of like amount – Bail granted on the basis that further custody was unwarranted, trial likely to take time, and no evidence suggesting interference with trial or tampering with evidence [Paras 9–13].

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.
 

Civil Writ - Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 – Judicial Orders by Civil Courts – Scope Limited – Article 227 Jurisdiction Distinguished – The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a judicial order of the Civil Court – The Hon'ble Apex Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, clarified that judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Scope of Article 227 as distinct from Article 226 reaffirmed – Held: The petition under Article 226 was not maintainable and required conversion under Article 227 [Paras 2, 27].

Conversion of Writ Petition to Civil Miscellaneous Petition – Compliance with High Court Rules – Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Radhey Shyam (supra), Patna High Court amended its Rules to provide for filing petitions against Civil Court orders under Article 227 in the Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction – The petitioner was directed to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition within four weeks [Para 4].

Judicial Efficiency – Pending Cases – Recognizing the pendency of the case for over 11 years, the Court emphasized the need for expedited processing after conversion of the petition [Para 5].

Decision: Time granted for converting the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227. Registry directed to ensure expeditious listing post-conversion.
 

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Amicable Settlement – Law Students – FIR Quashed – Held: Criminal proceedings in Bharatpur P.S. Case No. 168 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 497 of 2024, quashed due to amicable settlement – Petitioners, being law students, directed to volunteer at an orphanage to imbibe responsibility and accountability – No useful purpose in proceeding with the trial as allegations were minor and arose out of a misunderstanding – Reference made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 [Paras 1-10].

Accountability of Law Students – Misconduct in Ragging – Observed: While quashing proceedings, the Court highlighted the responsibility of law students to maintain societal and ethical integrity – Directed petitioners to volunteer for a week at an orphanage as a corrective and educative measure [Paras 9-10].

Decision: The Court quashed the criminal proceedings in Bharatpur P.S. Case No. 168 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 497 of 2024, pending before the JMFC (V), Bhubaneswar, based on a compromise deed executed between the parties.

Acknowledging the petitioners' youth and lack of maturity, the Court stressed the role of legal education in shaping future advocates who embody justice and societal responsibility. The petitioners were directed to volunteer at an orphanage for one week, teaching or conducting workshops, and to furnish a completion certificate to the Court within four weeks.

The petition was allowed, with the expectation that the experience would guide the petitioners toward a positive direction in their legal careers.

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].
 

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Applicability of Rules of 2018 and Rule 28 of Management Rules of 1969 – Convent of Our Lady of Providence Girls High School, a Christian minority unaided school, initiated disciplinary proceedings against two teachers alleging misconduct – Petitioners challenged the proceedings citing non-compliance with the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2018 and Rule 28 of the Management Rules of 1969 – Supreme Court clarified that Rules of 2018 are inapplicable to unaided minority schools and directed the school to proceed further after serving the enquiry report – High Court reiterated that Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules applies only to the extent of ensuring reasonable facilities for defense and does not mandate prior approval of the Board in unaided minority institutions [Paras 15.5, 16.5-16.8, 17.4-17.5].

Minority Institution – Autonomy in Administration – School argued that as a Christian minority institution, it enjoys autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and is not bound by provisions interfering with its administration – High Court upheld this position, relying on precedents including Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India (1986) and Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West Bengal (2020), which invalidated provisions requiring prior approval for disciplinary actions in unaided minority institutions as violative of Article 30(1) [Paras 16.5-16.7].

Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners’ earlier writs challenging the enquiry report were disposed of without quashing the report – Supreme Court allowed the school to proceed further based on the same report – Renewed challenge to the enquiry report barred by constructive res judicata as the prior proceedings amounted to a deemed refusal to grant the relief sought [Paras 17.5].

Decision:

WPA 7329 of 2023: Dismissed – Petitioners directed to respond to the enquiry report within two weeks – School may continue disciplinary proceedings [Para 17.5].

WPA 7894 of 2022 and WPA 7897 of 2022: Dismissed as not pressed, as the school did not pursue its challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules of 2018 [Final Paragraph].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – Assessment of Husband's Financial Capacity – The husband challenged the trial court's award of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter as permanent alimony, while the wife sought enhancement of the amount – Evidence established that the husband had adequate financial means, including agricultural land, a petrol pump, and business income – Held: Husband is liable to pay the awarded alimony – Appeal by the husband dismissed, and no enhancement granted to the wife as no infirmity was found in the trial court's judgment.

Husband's Financial Status – Evidence Supporting Adequate Means – The trial court relied on documentary evidence, including LIC policies, partnership deeds, and land ownership records, to conclude that the husband had sufficient financial resources – Held: The husband's bare denial without contradictory evidence is insufficient – The family court’s finding of adequate means is affirmed.

Wife's Dependency and Custody of Minor Child – The wife, living with her mother and caring for the minor daughter, was found to be unemployed and dependent – Husband’s assertion that the wife ran a coaching center and owned a four-wheeler was unsupported by evidence – Held: Permanent alimony awarded to wife and daughter upheld as reasonable and just.

Procedural Fairness – No Fresh Opportunity to Lead Evidence – Husband’s failure to lead evidence during the trial cannot justify granting another opportunity at the appellate stage – Held: Family court proceedings were fair, and the trial court's decision was based on cogent evidence – No procedural infirmity found.

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – The husband's appeal challenging the family court’s order fails, and the wife’s appeal for enhancement of alimony is also rejected – Permanent alimony of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter upheld as reasonable.