Trade Marks – Section 11 – Relative Grounds of Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – Registrar refused registration of mark “PETKIND” citing prior pending application for identical mark in Class 31 – Held: Likelihood of confusion is not to be presumed mechanically – Nature of goods, purchasing public, prior use and surrounding circumstances must be examined – Mere existence of a prior application does not automatically mandate refusal [Paras 10–13].

Family of Marks – ‘KIND’ Suffix – Prior User Advantage – Appellant established extensive prior use and registration of “KIND” family of marks across multiple classes including Class 31 – Appellant held to be prior user of “KIND” since 1986 – Continuous and extensive use resulted in public association of “KIND” with appellant – Entitled to higher degree of protection [Paras 14–16].

Well-Known Trade Mark – Effect – Mark “MANKIND” declared well-known under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 – Recognition as well-known mark strengthens appellant’s claim over “KIND” formative marks – Registrar failed to accord due weight to well-known status while refusing registration [Paras 14–15].

Prior Pending Application – ‘Proposed to be Used’ Basis – Limited Evidentiary Value – Cited mark relied upon by Registrar was on “proposed to be used” basis with no evidence of actual commercial use – In contrast, appellant demonstrated overwhelming registrations and goodwill in “KIND” family – Held: A mere proposed-use application cannot defeat established proprietary rights of a prior and extensive user [Paras 15–16].

Registrar’s Duty – Holistic Examination of Record – Registrar failed to consider appellant’s existing registrations in Class 31 with “KIND” suffix – Non-consideration of material evidence renders refusal arbitrary and legally unsustainable – Examination under Section 11 must be comparative and contextual [Paras 15–16].

Distinctiveness – Arbitrary Mark – “PETKIND” held to be inherently distinctive as applied to Class 31 goods – Use of suffix “KIND” operates as source identifier of appellant – Subject mark not descriptive of goods and capable of distinguishing appellant’s products [Paras 8.3–8.5, 14].

Opposition Proceedings – Clarification – Allowing appeal does not preclude third parties from opposing registration – Any opposition to be decided independently on merits without influence of appellate findings [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 06.11.2024 set aside – Registrar directed to proceed with advertisement of trade mark “PETKIND” under Application No. 5157443 within two months – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17–21].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Pre-cognizance Stage – Section 223 BNSS – Magistrate directed issuance of notice to accused before taking cognizance – Held impermissible in complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is a special enactment – No requirement of issuing notice or summons to accused prior to taking cognizance [Paras 5–10].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS, 2023 – Section 223 – Interpretation of First Proviso – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Supreme Court clarified that proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS does not mandate pre-cognizance notice in cheque dishonour cases – Trial Court erred in applying proviso mechanically at pre-cognizance stage [Paras 6–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Supreme Court Decision – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar – Law declared that issuance of notice to accused prior to cognizance is not required in N.I. Act cases – Held: Trial Court order contrary to binding precedent suffers from legal infirmity [Paras 8–10].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Motion Stage Disposal – Pure Question of Law – In view of settled legal position, criminal revision taken up and decided at motion stage – Issuance of notice to private respondents dispensed with [Paras 11].

Remand – Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh in accordance with law and Supreme Court ruling – Impugned order quashed to the extent of issuing pre-cognizance notice [Paras 10, 12–14].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 quashed to the extent it directed issuance of notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage – Trial Court directed to take fresh decision on cognizance and issuance of process in accordance with law.

Family Law - Custody and Visitation – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – Visitation rights of father modified by Family Court reducing frequency of physical meetings and introducing regulated video calls – Held: In matters of custody and visitation, welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration overriding rights and convenience of parents – Courts must ensure physical safety, emotional well-being and psychological stability of the child [Paras 11, 15–18].

Interim Visitation – Power to Modify – Change in Circumstances – Family Court modified earlier consensual interim visitation arrangement dated 14.11.2024 based on subsequent incidents including alleged altercations, registration of FIR and complaints under PWDV Act – Held: Interim visitation arrangements are always subject to modification if subsequent events demonstrate potential impact on child’s welfare – No vested right accrues to either parent [Paras 14–16].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Limited Appellate Interference – Family Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction after considering relevant material – Appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless order is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to welfare of child – Mere reduction in visitation frequency does not amount to denial of parental contact [Paras 20–21].

Balancing Parental Contact with Child’s Safety and Stability – Modified arrangement permitted physical meetings twice a month at neutral public place and video calls twice a month – Held: Arrangement strikes balance between father’s right to meaningful contact and need to protect child from instability arising from inter se parental disputes – Modification protective rather than punitive [Paras 17–18].

Ongoing Parental Conflict – Impact on Child – Record reflected multiple litigations and acrimonious disputes between parties – Courts duty-bound to insulate child from parental conflict as far as possible – Stability, routine and academic needs of school-going child must be prioritised over frequent short-duration meetings [Paras 19–20].

Allegations Pending Investigation – No Final Adjudication Required at Interim Stage – While allegations against father disputed, Family Court not required to conclusively determine truth at interim stage – Existence of surrounding circumstances sufficient to warrant cautious approach in regulating visitation [Paras 16–18].

Visitation Rights – Not Absolute – Subject to Regulation – Right of a parent to visitation is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated in interest of child’s welfare – Interim arrangements remain open to future modification upon demonstrable change in circumstances [Paras 20–23].

Counselling and Mediation – Observations – Court emphasised shared parental responsibility to foster healthy environment for child – Family Court may explore counselling or mediation to evolve harmonious co-parenting framework [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 15.12.2025 upheld – Modified interim visitation arrangement to continue until further orders – Observations confined to interim visitation and not to affect merits of pending proceedings [Paras 21–25].

Civil Law  – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC – Nature of Relief – Discretionary and Equitable – Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings is not a matter of right – Applicant must establish “good cause” for non-appearance on date when proceeded ex parte – Unlike Order IX Rule 13, Rule 7 does not confer vested right to reopen proceedings – Discretion must be exercised on conduct of party and surrounding circumstances [Paras 10, 16].

Limitation – Article 137 Limitation Act – Applicability to Order IX Rule 7 CPC – Though CPC does not prescribe specific limitation, residuary Article 137 applies to all applications before civil courts unless expressly excluded – Period of three years cannot be rendered meaningless by prolonged inaction – Application filed after more than five years held barred by limitation and laches [Paras 11–14].

Service of Summons – Order V Rule 15 CPC – Validity of Service on Family Member – Summons served on petitioner’s father at correct address – Minor discrepancy in petitioner’s name not material where identity established – Process server reported prior conversation with petitioner and acceptance of summons by father at petitioner’s responsibility – Service held valid and in compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 7, 9].

Knowledge of Proceedings – Conduct of Party – Estoppel – Material on record showed petitioner’s prior knowledge of pendency of suit – Compromise entered before police authorities bearing petitioner’s signature acknowledging civil dispute and next date of hearing – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected as afterthought and attempt to mislead Court [Paras 8–9].

Delay and Laches – Equitable Relief Denied – Ex parte order passed on 10.01.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 7 filed on 02.09.2025 without satisfactory explanation – Gross and unexplained delay destructive of equitable relief – Courts cannot reward deliberate inaction [Paras 14–15].

Stage of Proceedings – Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit had progressed to stage of defendants’ evidence – Allowing belated application would unsettle concluded proceedings – Procedural discipline must be maintained to ensure certainty in civil trials [Para 15].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – No Interference with Discretionary Orders – High Court’s revisional power limited to correcting jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality – Trial Court exercised discretion on cogent material and settled principles – Mere possibility of different view no ground for interference [Paras 16–17].

Balancing Natural Justice – Limited Participation Permitted – Though revision dismissed, petitioner permitted to participate in further proceedings – Such participation not to reopen concluded stages – Petitioner barred from filing written statement or leading evidence [Para 18].

Decision – Civil revision dismissed – Order rejecting application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC upheld – No perversity or illegality found – Limited participation allowed in interest of natural justice without reopening proceedings [Paras 17–18].

Land Acquisition – Bangalore Development Authority Act – Lapse of Scheme under Section 27 – Substantial Implementation – Preliminary Notification issued for 1532 acres – Final Notification restricted to 750 acres – BDA took possession of 580 acres 18 guntas and formed layout carving out thousands of sites – Majority of sites allotted – Held, scheme substantially implemented – No lapse under Section 27 of BDA Act [Paras 6, 10, 13–14].

Land Acquisition – Taking Possession – Mahazar and Section 16(2) Notification – Award passed, compensation deposited in Court, possession taken by drawing mahazar and notification under Section 16(2) published – Mutation effected in favour of BDA – Held, acquisition proceedings showed seamless and lawful flow of events – Mode of taking possession not illegal or irregular [Paras 11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Final Notification published in 2003 – Five years expired in 2008 – Writ petition filed only in 2013 without satisfactory explanation – Alleged fresh cause of action based on entry by BDA officials rejected – Held, petition barred by delay and laches [Paras 11].

Locus Standi – Subsisting Interest – Challenge by Subsequent Claimants – Original khatedars did not challenge acquisition – Gift deeds executed prior to preliminary notification – Held, petitioners lacked locus in respect of certain survey numbers – However, legal heirs of Ammayamma held to have locus regarding Sy.No.36/1 [Paras 8].

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Earlier writ petitions challenged acquisition notifications but did not raise plea of lapsing under Section 27 of BDA Act – Held, subsequent petition on ground of lapse not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata [Paras 9].

Discrimination – Betterment Charges – Denotification – BDA permitted certain landowners to retain lands on payment of betterment charges – Petitioners’ claim of discrimination rejected – Held, deletion based on rational considerations and public interest – No right to claim parity [Paras 6, 13].

Precedent – Coordinate Bench – Binding Effect – Earlier Division Bench judgment upheld acquisition for same layout and specifically negatived plea of lapse – Supreme Court dismissed civil appeals arising therefrom – Held, consistency required – No ground for interference with Single Judge’s order [Paras 12–14].

Public Interest – Urban Development – Acquisition for planned development – Courts should not interfere once substantial development has taken place – Individual interests must yield to larger public purpose [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Writ Appeal No. 944 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No. 926 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10331 of 2013 upheld – Land acquisition proceedings sustained – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Conviction – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 451 IPC – Victim aged about 9 years at time of incident – Victim categorically stated in cross-examination that appellant made full penetration – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – No rule of law requiring corroboration in every case [Paras 3.1–3.4, 4.2].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Doctor found no recent clinical signs of sexual intercourse and no injuries on victim – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit reliable ocular testimony of victim – Medical evidence is corroborative and not substantive – Where testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy, conviction can be based thereon [Paras 2.5–2.7, 4.2].

Child Witness – Credibility – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC consistent with FIR and deposition before Court – Victim stood firm during cross-examination – No material contradictions or infirmities found – Evidence inspires confidence [Paras 3, 4.2].

Rape Jurisprudence – Corroboration – Rule of Prudence Not of Law – Reiterated that corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony is not a sine qua non – Minor discrepancies or absence of physical injuries do not negate prosecution case – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court decisions affirming settled principles [Paras 3.2–3.3, 4.2].

Defence Plea – Prior Enmity – Not Substantiated – Suggestion of prior quarrel between families insufficient to discard victim’s evidence – No evidence of false implication established – Mere existence of past dispute does not demolish prosecution case [Paras 2.4, 4.2].

POCSO Act – Strict Liability – Protection of Child Victims – Victim being a minor, statutory presumption operates in favour of prosecution – Sexual assault on child proved beyond reasonable doubt through victim’s testimony – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act justified [Paras 3.4, 4.2].

Sentence – No Interference – Sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under IPC and POCSO Act directed to run concurrently – Trial court judgment found to be legal and proper – No ground made out for appellate interference [Paras 1, 4.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, Nuapada affirmed – Appellant to undergo sentence as awarded – No interference warranted [Para 4.3].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 22 – Preferential Right of Pre-emption – Co-heirs – Testamentary Succession – Property originally owned by Tula Ram and bequeathed to his wife Purni Devi by a valid Will – Upon death of Purni Devi, property devolved by succession on her Class-I heirs including plaintiff and vendors – Vendors sold their share to defendant without notice to plaintiff – Held: Vendors inherited property by succession and not by survivorship – Plaintiff being a co-heir had a statutory preferential right under Section 22 – Courts below rightly decreed suit for pre-emption [Paras 11–12, 25–26].

Survivorship vs Succession – Female Owner – Inapplicability of Survivorship – Once property vested absolutely in a female owner under a Will, succession opens only after her death – Concept of survivorship has no application thereafter – Vendors could not claim inheritance by survivorship to defeat Section 22 – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 11, 25].

Pre-emption – Notice of Intended Sale – Burden of Proof – Plea that plaintiff had notice of intended sale and refused to purchase – Burden lies on vendee/defendant to prove notice and refusal – Mere oral assertion of vendor without documentary or independent corroboration insufficient – Absence of notice preserves statutory right of co-heir [Paras 12, 22, 27].

Waiver of Statutory Right – Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Conduct – Waiver of a statutory preferential right cannot be inferred lightly – Must be intentional, conscious and unequivocal – Continued joint ownership and absence of proof of notice negates plea of waiver – No abandonment of right established [Paras 13, 28].

Urban Property – Section 22 HSA – Independent of Customary Pre-emption – Statutory right under Section 22 operates irrespective of customary or relationship-based pre-emption – Decision in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana does not dilute statutory preferential right of co-heirs – Correctly distinguished by Courts below [Paras 15, 26].

Regular Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Findings regarding validity of Will, nature of succession, co-heirship, absence of notice and non-waiver based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – Interference in second appeal declined [Paras 23, 29–30].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decreeing suit for possession by way of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act affirmed – No substantial question of law arises.

Criminal Law – Quashing Of FIRs - Mines and Minerals – Illegal Mining – FIR by Police – Cognizable Offence – Scope of Section 21(6) MMDR Act – Section 21(6) expressly declares offences under Section 21(1) to be cognizable notwithstanding Cr.P.C. – Police are competent to register FIRs and conduct investigation for offences under MMDR Act – Section 22 does not bar registration of FIR or investigation – Bar operates only at the stage of taking cognizance by Court.

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance – Distinction between Investigation and Cognizance – Section 22 MMDR Act – Cognizance implies judicial application of mind for proceeding against accused – Filing of FIR, investigation, seizure and submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. do not amount to taking cognizance – Magistrate can take cognizance of offence under MMDR Act only on a written complaint by authorised officer – Cognizance taken merely on police report is without jurisdiction.

Police Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – MMDR Act – Legal Status – Police report can be submitted after investigation – However, trial cannot proceed unless accompanied by a complaint under Section 22 by authorised officer – Proceedings beyond the stage of cognizance liable to be quashed – FIR and investigation saved.

IPC Offences – Theft of Minerals – Sections 379/411 IPC – Maintainability – Illegal extraction and removal of minerals constitutes distinct offence of theft under IPC – Cognizance of IPC offences not barred by Section 22 MMDR Act – Court competent to proceed for IPC offences independent of MMDR Act violations.

Precedent – Conflicting Coordinate Bench Views – Resolution – Earlier Punjab & Haryana High Court judgments holding FIRs under MMDR Act as impermissible held to be per incuriam for non-consideration of Section 21(6) – Law laid down in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay and Jayant v. State of M.P. followed – Section 21(6) read as statutory exception to Section 22 [Paras 20–21, 25].

Relief – Partial Quashing – FIRs and investigations upheld as valid – Cognizance taken and consequential proceedings quashed where no complaint by authorised officer was filed – Liberty granted to State/competent authority to file complaint under Section 22 MMDR Act – Trial courts to proceed thereafter in accordance with law.

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – FIRs and investigations sustained – Proceedings from the stage of cognizance quashed where taken without authorised complaint – Liberty reserved to competent authority to file complaint under Section 22 MMDR Act.

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Maintainability of Claim – Income Limit under Second Schedule – Tribunal dismissed claim holding annual income of deceased exceeded ₹40,000/- by including daily fooding allowance – High Court held that allowance paid exclusively for personal benefit of employee cannot be treated as contribution to family – Fooding allowance of ₹150 per day excluded from income computation – Annual income restricted to ₹39,600/- – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable [Paras 11, 15–17].

Compensation – Meaning of Income – Allowances – Distinction between Personal Benefit and Family Contribution – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava – Only those components of remuneration which would have formed part of family contribution can be included – Allowances meant exclusively for individual use cannot be added – Tribunal’s contrary view set aside [Paras 14–17].

Precedent – Deepal Girishbhai Soni – Applicability Explained – Earlier judgments relied upon by Tribunal distinguishable on facts – Issue of exclusion of allowances not examined in those cases – Income computation requires nuanced analysis based on nature of allowance [Paras 11, 16].

Insurance Policy – Employee Coverage – Comprehensive Package Policy – Policy produced before High Court showed coverage of employees of owner up to specified number – Deceased was helper of insured vehicle – Insurer liable to indemnify owner and pay compensation – Tribunal’s finding to contrary rejected [Paras 20–21].

Beneficial Legislation – Appellate Court Powers – Tribunal did not adjudicate other issues after rejecting claim on maintainability – High Court proceeded to determine liability and quantum to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial legislation, prolonged litigation avoided [Para 19].

Quantum of Compensation – Assessment by High Court – Monthly income assessed at ₹3,300/- – Annual income ₹39,600/- – One-third deducted towards personal expenses – Compensation computed at ₹4,75,200/- plus general damages of ₹9,500/- – Total compensation ₹4,84,700/- with 6% interest from date of application [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Award of Tribunal set aside – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable – Compensation of ₹4,84,700/- with interest awarded – Insurance Company directed to pay amount within three months – Tribunal to apportion compensation among claimants – No costs [Paras 22–23].