Civil Law - Will – Proof Requirement – Attesting Witness Not Examined – Will Held Unproved – Both courts below accepted the Will based solely on scribe’s statement – Held: Under Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act, at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove execution – Mere testimony of scribe not sufficient where attesting witness was alive but not examined – Will dated 15.02.1980 discarded [Paras 10.3, 23–28, 31–39].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility of Copy of Will – Valid Grant of Permission – Held: Sufficient proof was given that original Will was lost after being produced for mutation – Secondary evidence rightly permitted under Section 65(c) of Evidence Act – However, failure to prove Will through attesting witness rendered it inadmissible [Paras 13–19].

Date of Death – Conflict Between Official Record and Mutation – Decided on Preponderance – Plaintiff claimed death occurred on 01.04.1980 per death certificate; defendants relied on mutation record showing 19.03.1980 – Held: Mutation process initiated before 01.04.1980, supporting earlier death date – Entry in mutation held more credible in circumstances [Paras 20–22].

Concurrent Findings – When High Court May Interfere – Misapplication of Legal Principles – Held: Though concurrent findings generally not disturbed in second appeal, courts below misapplied law regarding attestation of Will – Interference justified under Section 100 CPC in light of perversity and material legal error [Paras 42–44].

Decision:  Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial and First Appellate Court set aside – Will dated 15.02.1980 held not proved – Plaintiff declared entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property by natural succession – Decree for possession granted accordingly – No order as to costs [Para 45].

Family Law – Divorce Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The wife objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Cuttack, stating that the couple last resided together in June 2017, whereas the husband filed for divorce in February 2019 when he was no longer residing in Cuttack – Held: The plea of lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity – Since the wife raised the objection belatedly, after five years and after recording of evidence had commenced, the objection was deemed waived – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 5-8].

Civil Procedure – Objection to Jurisdiction – Waiver – Section 21 of CPC – The petitioner failed to object to jurisdiction at the initial stage and instead participated in proceedings for five years – Held: An objection to territorial jurisdiction can be waived, expressly or impliedly, by conduct – Raising it after substantial proceedings amounts to an implied waiver – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Precedents – Timing of Jurisdictional Challenge – The Court referred to Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Jagannath Traders, 2013 (Supp.-1) OLR 73, and G. Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2010 (28) VST 411 (Kerala), to affirm that objections to territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest – Held: Raising such objections belatedly, after trial proceedings have commenced, is impermissible [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Objection to jurisdiction held inconsequential due to delay – Petitioner not precluded from filing a fresh petition in the appropriate forum if required [Paras 8-9].

Service Law – Judicial Officers – Discharge from Service – Challenge to Termination – Petitioners, who were appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in 2013, were discharged from service under Rule 24(4) of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 – The discharge order was based on a Full Court resolution after an inquiry into an altercation involving probationers during training – Petitioners contended that the order, though couched as simpliciter, was punitive in nature and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Held: The termination, though worded as simpliciter, was based solely on misconduct alleged in an inquiry report, making it punitive in nature – The order was quashed, and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed [Paras 4, 10, 12, 14, 22, 43, 54].

Probationary Judicial Officers – Scope of Discharge – Lifting the Veil – Petitioners argued that their termination was not based on an overall assessment of suitability but only on a single incident of altercation during training – Inquiry report dated 12.09.2014, which formed the basis of termination, attributed misconduct to the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to be heard – Court applied the doctrine of "lifting the veil" to examine whether misconduct was the foundation of termination – Held: Termination based on misconduct required adherence to principles of natural justice, and mere labeling of an order as "simpliciter discharge" would not suffice where misconduct is the basis [Paras 38, 41, 43, 48, 51].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Petitioners contended that they were denied an opportunity to defend themselves before being discharged – Inquiry report was relied upon without furnishing a copy to the petitioners or allowing them to rebut findings – Held: Discharge orders were punitive and violative of Article 311(2), as petitioners were removed on grounds of misconduct without inquiry – Order of discharge set aside, and reinstatement directed with full benefits [Paras 22, 42, 45, 49, 52].

Judicial Officers – Higher Standard of Conduct – Discretion of Full Court – Respondents argued that judicial officers are held to a higher standard of conduct, and even a single incident of misconduct during probation could justify discharge – Full Court has discretion to assess suitability for confirmation – Held: While high standards of conduct are expected, termination must still conform to legal principles, including natural justice – Full Court’s resolution failed to consider overall performance and was based solely on an isolated incident, rendering the termination unsustainable [Paras 29, 31, 32, 55, 56].

Decision – Discharge Orders Quashed – Reinstatement Ordered – Petition allowed – Discharge orders set aside – Petitioners reinstated with all consequential benefits – Held: Misconduct was the foundation of termination, requiring inquiry and due process, which was not followed [Paras 57, 59].

Taxation Law - Reassessment Proceedings – Requirement of Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Jurisdictional Condition – Section 147 of the Income-tax Act – Reassessment notice issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year must satisfy the condition that income escaped assessment due to failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts – In the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated without establishing such failure – Held: Reassessment proceedings are invalid and without jurisdiction [Paras 20-23].

Reassessment Proceedings – Bar Under Third Proviso to Section 147 – Where the subject matter of reassessment is pending in appeal before the appellate authority, reassessment proceedings on the same issue are barred – In the present case, the issue of "guarantee fee" was already under appeal before the Tribunal – Held: Reassessment proceedings initiated on the same issue are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed [Paras 24-25].

Reassessment Proceedings – Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – Change of Opinion Not Permissible – Reassessment cannot be initiated based on the same material that was already considered during original assessment – The reasons for reopening did not rely on any new material – Held: The reassessment proceedings amount to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law [Paras 22-23, 26].

Notice under Section 148 – Compliance by Treating Original Return as Response – An assessee is not barred from challenging reassessment proceedings merely for not filing a fresh return in response to Section 148 notice – If the assessee requests the department to treat the previously filed return as a response, it constitutes substantial compliance – Held: Petitioner complied with Section 148 notice requirements, and the reassessment order remains challengeable [Paras 28-29].

Quashing of Reassessment Proceedings – Absence of Jurisdictional Grounds – Section 147 & 148 of the Income-tax Act – Since there was full disclosure, the issue was already under appeal, and no fresh tangible material existed, the jurisdictional conditions under Section 147 were not satisfied – Held: The reassessment notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order are quashed as without jurisdiction [Paras 27, 30-31].

Custody of Child – Jurisdiction of Family Court – Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The petitioners argued that once custody was granted to the mother in a divorce decree, the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a fresh application under Section 11 of the Guardian and Wards Act – High Court held that Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows modification of custody orders even after divorce if circumstances change – The Family Court has jurisdiction to reconsider custody in the child’s best interests [Paras 5-6].

Change in Circumstances – Right to Seek Custody – Welfare of the Child is Paramount – The respondent-father sought custody modification citing changed circumstances – Petitioners argued that there was no material change – Relying on Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal and Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, the Court held that custody orders are temporary in nature and can be altered if the child’s welfare demands it – Held: A parent cannot be debarred from seeking custody modification solely because of a prior consent decree [Paras 7-8].

Rejection of Suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Whether Maintainable – Petitioners contended that the custody modification application was barred by law and should have been dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – High Court ruled that objections on merits should be raised during trial, not at the stage of admission – Held: The Family Court correctly rejected the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application as the case required full adjudication [Paras 9-10].

Final Decision – Revision petition dismissed – Held: The Family Court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Petitioners are free to raise objections on guardianship during trial, and the Family Court must decide the issue independently without being influenced by this order [Paras 10-11].

Civil Law - Intellectual Property Rights – Personality and Publicity Rights – Interim Injunction – Plaintiff, a renowned film director, producer, and television personality, sought an interim injunction against Defendants from using his name “Karan Johar” in the title of the cinematographic film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” / “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar” – Contended that such use violated his personality and publicity rights, misleadingly associating the film with him – Defendants argued that the names “Karan” and “Johar” were of two separate characters and did not directly reference Plaintiff – Court held that the Defendants’ use of “Karan” and “Johar” along with the theme of film direction in Bollywood created a direct and undeniable reference to Plaintiff – Plaintiff’s name had attained distinctive indicia and was entitled to protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation [Paras 6-10, 59-61, 62-64, 70].

Unauthorized Commercial Use – Exploitation of Brand Name – Plaintiff established goodwill and reputation in the entertainment industry, with his name being a brand name – Defendants’ film title and script contained multiple instances of “Karan Johar” being used together, making an association with Plaintiff inevitable – Court found that such use aimed to ride upon Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation for unjust commercial gain – Defendants’ argument that adding “AUR” between “Karan” and “Johar” would remove any association was rejected – Mere cosmetic changes could not remedy the unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s name and personality rights [Paras 8-9, 25-26, 63-69, 76-77].

Censorship Certificate – Irrelevance in Personality Rights Violation – Defendants argued that their film had obtained certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and hence no injunction should be granted – Court rejected this argument, holding that CBFC certification does not evaluate or determine violations of personal rights, publicity rights, or brand names – Precedents cited where courts have restrained films from using brand names despite CBFC certification – Mere certification did not restrict Plaintiff’s right to seek protection of his name and reputation [Paras 71-72].

Disclaimers – Insufficiency as a Remedy – Defendants offered to include a disclaimer stating that the film had no connection with Plaintiff – Court held that such disclaimers were inadequate to protect personality and publicity rights – Noted that mere disclaimers could not override direct and indirect references in the film that associated it with Plaintiff – Case law reviewed where courts ordered removal of brand names from films despite disclaimers [Paras 35-38, 73-75].

Judicial Precedents – Recognition of Personality Rights – Court relied on multiple judgments affirming the right of celebrities and public figures to control commercial use of their name, likeness, and attributes – Precedents from Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, and Madras High Court recognized enforceability of personality and publicity rights – Held that unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s name in Defendants’ film amounted to infringement of his personality rights, requiring injunctive relief [Paras 12-18, 59-61, 66-70].

Relief Granted – Strong prima facie case made out by Plaintiff – Balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favor as unauthorized use of his name could cause irreparable harm to his reputation – Interim application made absolute, restraining Defendants from using the name “Karan Johar” in any manner in relation to the film, its promotional materials, or public advertisements – No order as to costs [Paras 78-79].

Motor Vehicle Accident  Claim – Negligence – Determination of Liability – Whether the accident resulted from sole negligence of the truck driver or contributory negligence of the car driver – The tribunal held the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the truck driver who rammed into the car from behind – Held: No contributory negligence of the car driver was established, and the insurance company’s challenge to liability was dismissed [Paras 9-18].

Compensation – Future Prospects – Assessment – The tribunal awarded future prospects at 50% for a self-employed deceased person – Held: As per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pranay Sethi, future prospects should be limited to 40% – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 23-29].

Interest Rate on Compensation – Insurance company challenged the interest rate of 8% per annum as excessive – Held: Interest rate awarded by the tribunal was reasonable and did not warrant modification [Paras 19-22].

Enhancement of Compensation – Claimants sought higher compensation based on latest income tax returns and additional damages for loss of love and affection – Held: Income tax return for 2016-2017 should have been considered, and loss of consortium enhanced for each claimant – Total compensation enhanced to ₹42,46,000/- with interest @8% p.a. [Paras 30-37].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Delay in Filing of Complaint – Continuous Offense – No Bar on Investigation – The petitioner contended that the complaint was lodged five years after the alleged incidents, rendering it politically motivated – The Court held that the complaint was not limited to events in 2019 but referred to a continuing pattern of conduct up to 2024 – Held: The investigation is not barred by delay since the allegations indicate a continuing offense [Paras 9-10].

Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Legality of Constitution – Officers Need Not Be Exclusively from CID – The petitioner argued that the SIT was improperly constituted since not all its members were from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) – The Court clarified that while the head of the SIT was from CID, other members could be drawn from different departments – Held: The constitution of SIT was legal and within the State Government's powers [Paras 11-12].

Power of SIT to File Report – Direction to Submit Report to Government Does Not Vitiate Investigation – The petitioner contended that since the SIT was directed to submit its report to the Government instead of the Court, the investigation was vitiated – Relying on precedents, the Court held that such a direction does not preclude the SIT from filing its final report before the jurisdictional court – Held: The notification constituting the SIT does not render the investigation illegal or without jurisdiction [Paras 12-13].

CID as a Police Station – Authority to Investigate and Register Cases – The Court referred to the Government Notification dated 12-01-2024, declaring CID as a police station for the entire state of Karnataka – Held: CID officers investigating the case were acting within their legal authority, and the investigation was valid [Para 14].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Grounds for Quashing FIR – The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it – Held: The FIR and investigation shall continue as per law [Para 15].

Labour Law – Delay in Raising Industrial Dispute – Void Orders Must Be Challenged Within Limitation – Labour Court Award Set Aside – Punishment orders passed in 1996, 1999, and 2000 were set aside by Labour Court on reference raised by Union in 2006 – Held: As per State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, even void orders must be challenged within prescribed limitation – Labour Court wrongly ignored binding precedent and entertained stale claim [Paras 2–4, 7–10].

Industrial Dispute – Reference by Union vs. Workman – Challenge Must Be Personal – Court observed that reference was raised by the Union and not by the affected workman – Prayer in reference was for salary increment restoration, not direct challenge to punishment orders – Tribunal erred in granting substantive relief beyond scope of reference [Paras 6–7].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent of Supreme Court Ignored – Court found the Labour Court acted contrary to the ratio in Gurdev Singh (1991), which mandates a 3-year limitation even for void orders – Held: Failure to follow binding precedent renders award perverse and unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Award of Labour Court dated 28.03.2016 set aside – Orders of punishment reinstated – Court held that claim was barred by limitation and Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction [Para 11].