Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Burden of Proof on Petitioner – Appellant sought divorce under Section 10(1)(ix) & (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, alleging that the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home, subjected him to cruelty, and filed false complaints – Respondent denied allegations, stating that the appellant was living with another woman and that she was forced to file complaints – High Court held: Mere allegations without substantive evidence do not constitute cruelty or desertion – Divorce cannot be granted in the absence of clear proof of grave and weighty conduct making cohabitation impossible [Paras 8-10, 15-16].

Evidence Law – Admissibility and Weight of Evidence – Unrebutted Testimony Insufficient – The appellant’s evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses – Respondent’s evidence was eschewed due to her failure to appear for cross-examination – High Court ruled that even in such a scenario, the appellant bears the burden of proving cruelty and desertion, which he failed to discharge – Failure to examine independent witnesses further weakened his case [Paras 11-12, 15].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Not a Ground for Divorce Under Indian Divorce Act, 1869 – Appellant relied on precedents supporting dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown – High Court held: Mere separation and strained relations do not automatically justify divorce under the Act – Unlike Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as a standalone ground for divorce [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No costs awarded [Paras 19-20].
 

Civil Procedure – Injunction Against Title Holders – Maintainability – Petitioner sought an interim injunction restraining respondents (title holders) from alienating the suit property, claiming a contractual right based on an unregistered sale agreement – Trial Court and Appellate Court rejected the claim, holding that an injunction cannot be granted against the rightful owners – Held: A person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the true owner – Mere existence of an agreement to sell does not create any ownership rights – Petition dismissed [Paras 14-16].

Professional Misconduct – Advocates Act – Ethical Violations – Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Preethi Basker, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including conflict of interest, unethical financial dealings, and misrepresentation before the court – Held: Prima facie case of misconduct established – Direction issued to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the advocate – Matter referred for further inquiry [Paras 27-29].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Sale Agreement – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner and his associates allegedly manipulated legal proceedings to extort money from respondents – Evidence of falsified transactions, fraudulent agreements, and intimidation tactics presented – Held: Such conduct amounts to abuse of judicial process – Proceedings directed to be scrutinized by the appropriate authorities [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, confirming that the petitioner had no legal right to seek an injunction against the property owners – Directions issued for disciplinary and legal action against concerned individuals – No costs [Paras 68-69].
 

Bail Application – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Prima Facie Case Against Accused – Rejection Upheld – The appellants, accused of recruiting individuals for a proscribed organization, filed for bail under UAPA – The trial court rejected their applications, citing the bar under Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Held: The prosecution presented credible material including witness testimonies and documentary evidence linking the appellants to CPI (Maoist) – The threshold under Section 43-D(5) UAPA requires only a prima facie case, not conclusive proof – The burden is on the accused to disprove allegations, which they failed to do – Bail rightly denied [Paras 7-10].

Burden of Proof – Standard for Bail Under UAPA – Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Stringent Conditions Applied – The defense argued that CMS (Chaitanya Mahila Sangham), to which the accused belonged, is not a banned organization – However, the prosecution produced letters, protected witness statements, and identification records linking the appellants to CPI (Maoist) – Held: Under Section 43-D(5) UAPA, if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, bail must be denied – The evidence sufficiently established the accused’s role in radicalization and recruitment activities [Paras 8-9].

Delay in FIR – Impact on Prosecution – Not a Ground for Bail – The appellants contended that the de facto complainant reported her daughter’s disappearance after four years, weakening the prosecution’s case – Held: Delay in filing an FIR, though a factor for consideration, is not fatal if the prosecution can justify it – The complainant consistently maintained that her daughter was misled and recruited into the Maoist cadre – The investigative agencies corroborated the claims with independent material, making delay irrelevant [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Criminal Appeals Dismissed – Bail Denied – The High Court found the trial court’s decision to be legally sound – Considering the gravity of the offense and the prima facie case established, the appellants were not entitled to bail under Section 43-D(5) UAPA – No interference warranted – Appeals dismissed [Paras 10-11].
 

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].

Civil Writ - Public Employment – Prescribed Qualification vs. Equivalent Qualification – KPSC’s Inconsistent Approach Struck Down – The petitioners contended that their qualifications, recognized by government institutions, were equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the recruitment notification – The Court found that the KPSC had arbitrarily excluded them despite initially considering them eligible – Held: Once KPSC accepted the qualifications and included the petitioners in the shortlist, their later exclusion was unjustified [Paras 9-10].

Recruitment Process – Equivalence of Qualifications – Supreme Court’s Observations on KPSC’s Inconsistency – The Supreme Court in Anoop M v. Gireeshkumar T.M. emphasized that equivalence applied to institutions rather than qualifications themselves – The Kerala High Court reiterated that KPSC could not reject candidates possessing qualifications from government-approved institutions when the same were accepted in previous selections – Held: KPSC’s rejection of candidates without a proper assessment was arbitrary and violative of settled principles of public employment [Paras 7-8].

KPSC’s Duty – Transparent and Fair Selection Process – Non-Speaking Orders on Exclusion Invalid – The Court noted that KPSC had sent official messages to candidates confirming their eligibility, only to later exclude them without valid reasoning – Held: The rejection of the petitioners’ names from the final rank list was arbitrary, and they must be reinstated in accordance with merit [Paras 8-9].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Petitioners to be Included in Rank List – The Court directed KPSC to include all petitioners who were originally shortlisted and whose qualifications were accepted, ensuring their placement in the final rank list according to merit – Held: Writ petitions allowed, and all interlocutory applications closed [Para 10].
 

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].

Matrimonial Criminal Law - Criminal Revision – Domestic Violence Allegation – Acquittal by Appellate Court – Revision Dismissed – Applicant alleged assault and verbal abuse by her husband, leading to trial court conviction under Section 323 IPC – Appellate Court reversed conviction, giving benefit of doubt citing delay in lodging FIR, lack of injury, and contradictory witness testimony – High Court upheld acquittal, holding findings not perverse and based on evidence on record [Paras 2–9].
Delay in FIR – Five-Day Delay Without Proper Justification – Benefit of Doubt Given – Court observed that though delay alone is not fatal, in matrimonial disputes, unexplained delay weakens prosecution case – Further, FIR lodged in different district than where incident occurred, creating doubt about credibility – Held: Delay contributed to acquittal [Paras 7–8].
Contradictory Testimony – Independent Witness Did Not Support Prosecution – Acquittal Justified – Key prosecution witnesses including the complainant’s own father and independent witnesses did not support her version – Court noted that testimony of complainant alone was insufficient to sustain conviction in light of these contradictions [Paras 8–9].
Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference in Acquittal – Only When Finding is Perverse – Court reiterated that revisional powers must be exercised sparingly – Unless the findings of the appellate court are perverse or against the weight of evidence, revision is not maintainable – No such perversity found in this case [Para 9].
Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Revision Dismissed – The High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the appellate court acquitting the husband under Section 323 IPC – Revision petition dismissed at admission stage itself [Para 10].
 

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].

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].