Look-Out Circular – Permission to Travel Abroad – Alleged Corporate Default – Conditional Relief Granted - Petitioner sought permission to travel to U.A.E. from 07.06.2025 to 27.06.2025 for business purposes – LOC was issued at the instance of Respondent No.4 bank citing massive outstanding dues and failed repayment plan under IBC – Respondent bank opposed on grounds of risk of absconding and rejection of repayment proposal – Held: In absence of objection from other respondents and considering prior permissions granted by Coordinate Bench, permission to travel granted subject to stringent safeguards including deposit of Rs.25 lakhs, travel itinerary disclosure, and undertaking of return – Immigration authorities directed to permit travel – Application allowed with conditions [Paras 1-6].

Service Law – Promotion – Articles 226 and 227 – Challenge to Tribunal's direction for reconsideration of promotion – Petition Allowed – The respondent, an IRS officer, was denied promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for vacancy year 2008–09 due to “Good” grading in ACR for 2006–07 – On challenge, Tribunal directed communication of the ACR and reconsideration – Review DPC upheld “Unfit” status – Tribunal then directed consideration of ACR for 2001–02 instead of 2006–07 – Held: Such substitution of criteria was beyond the jurisdiction of Tribunal – Communication and representation processes were duly followed – Respondent had right to be considered, not a vested right to promotion – Tribunal’s order quashed [Paras 2-6, 9-15].

Civil Law - Debts Recovery – Cross-Examination – Denial of Opportunity – Tribunal Order Set Aside – The petitioner, a partner of the 1st defendant firm, contested liability for crop loans claimed by the bank and sought to cross-examine the bank’s witness – DRT rejected the application citing delay and the non-necessity of oral evidence from a bank official relying on records – Held: Given the contested liability and criminal proceedings against a former bank manager for fraud, denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice – Tribunal’s order quashed [Paras 1–13].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Procedural Fairness Required – The Court held that though DRT proceedings are summary in nature, when core facts are disputed and liability is denied, cross-examination becomes essential to ensure fair adjudication – Discretion under Rule 12(9) of DRT Rules must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily – The Tribunal failed to consider relevant facts and misapplied delay as a ground to deny a substantive right [Paras 10–13].

Delay – Not Sole Ground to Deny Cross-Examination – Absence of Prejudice – The Court observed that the O.A. was pending since 2006, and no specific delay was attributable to the petitioner – The finding of delay as a tactic to protract proceedings was not supported by record – Court emphasized that delay alone cannot override the need for fair hearing when substantial prejudice is shown [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Tribunal Directed to Permit Cross-Examination – The High Court set aside the DRT’s order and directed it to allow cross-examination of the bank’s witness – Tribunal was further directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, with final orders to be passed on or before 31.12.2025 [Para 13].

Criminal Law - Dishonor of Cheque – Acquittal by Trial Court – Opportunity to Examine Bank Manager Denied – Matter Remanded – The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the NI Act which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the dishonor memos (Exts.P2 and P3) did not contain the cheque number – Held: As per Section 146 of the NI Act, bank’s dishonor memo is prima facie evidence, but it must contain the cheque number and related details – Trial Court erred in denying the complainant’s request to examine the Bank Manager to prove this crucial fact – Acquittal set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal after granting the complainant opportunity to examine the Bank Manager [Paras 6, 9-13].

Section 146 NI Act – Presumption of Dishonor – Applicability Explained – The Court clarified that while Section 146 creates a presumption based on the bank’s slip or memo, the memo must contain specific details like the cheque number, date, and amount to be effective evidence – In absence of these details, oral evidence through the Bank Manager is necessary to prove dishonor – Failure to permit such evidence amounts to violation of fair trial principles [Paras 9-11].

Natural Justice – Denial of Right to Adduce Evidence – Judgment Unsustainable – The dismissal of the complainant’s petition to summon the Bank Manager deprived him of a fair opportunity to prove his case – Held: Such denial vitiates the trial – Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and remand the case for proper adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Judgment of Acquittal Set Aside – Matter Remanded – The judgment dated 06.02.2014 in S.T. No.10 of 2012 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Karunagappally is set aside – The complainant is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.07.2025 at 11:00 a.m. – Trial Court to dispose of the case afresh after permitting examination of the Bank Manager – Appeal allowed [Paras 13].

Civil Law - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Delay Condonation – Exorbitant Delay – Lack of Bona Fides – Delay Not Condoned – The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 4864 days in filing a revision petition against the dismissal of an application to implead legal heirs in a suit for specific performance – The only ground cited was ignorance of earlier proceedings due to residing at her matrimonial home – Held: No sufficient cause was made out – Delay attributed to a casual and negligent approach without due diligence or urgency to pursue legal remedy [Paras 2–6].

Specific Performance Suit – Legal Heirs and Procedural Diligence – Dismissal for Delay – Earlier revision filed by co-legal heirs was dismissed in 2020 for non-compliance of court directions – The petitioner, despite knowledge, did not act promptly even post-dismissal – Held: The conduct revealed a callous and indifferent attitude – Relief in equity-based suits like specific performance demands timely, diligent participation – Petition dismissed [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court held that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory and indicative of negligence – Delay of over 13 years (4864 days) was not condonable in the absence of genuine reasons – The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the unnumbered revision suit stood dismissed without costs [Para 6].

Criminal Law - Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS - Sections 66(B), 65(A), 81, 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Appeal Against Acquittal – Alleged Possession of Liquor Without Permit – Acquittal Confirmed – Accused found with bottles allegedly containing English liquor – Investigating officer failed to send seized bottles for FSL analysis – No sample drawn or tested to establish contents as prohibited liquor – Held: Prosecution failed to prove nature of substance seized – Mandatory procedures not followed – Acquittal by Trial Court justified [Paras 9(i)-(v)].

NDPS Offence – Recovery of Marijuana – Non-Compliance of Sections 42 and 57 – Accused No.2 Deceased – No Proof of Ownership of Farm – Trial Court Rightly Disbelieved Prosecution – Held: Seizure procedure flawed – Investigating Officer did not ascertain ownership of farm or comply with procedural mandates of NDPS Act – No interference called for with acquittal [Paras 9(vi)].

Scope of Appellate Review – Acquittal Appeals – No Perverse or Arbitrary Findings – Reappreciation of Evidence Permissible – Held: As per SC decisions, appellate court must respect acquittal unless Trial Court’s view is manifestly erroneous or implausible – Present case does not warrant reversal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Decision – Prosecution Failed to Establish Offences Under Prohibition Act and NDPS Act – Acquittal Based on Justifiable Grounds – No Interference Warranted – Held: Findings of Trial Court are reasoned, supported by record, and free from legal infirmity – Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Section 406, 420, 34 of the IPC - Debit Freeze of Bank Account – Power Under Section 102 CrPC – Applicability of BNSS Sections 106 and 107 – Debit Freeze Lifted – The petitioner challenged the debit freeze of its bank account imposed by the police during investigation of a cheating case involving transfer of money allegedly from the proceeds of crime – Held: While Section 106 of BNSS (similar to Section 102 CrPC) empowers police to seize property for investigation, attachment or freezing of bank accounts suspected to be proceeds of crime must follow the procedure under Section 107 of BNSS, requiring Magistrate’s order – Police cannot unilaterally impose debit freeze without such order – Debit freeze set aside, liberty granted to police to proceed under Section 107 BNSS if warranted [Paras 6-14].

Attachment vs Seizure – Distinction Clarified – Section 106 BNSS deals with seizure of property related to the offence or under suspicious circumstances for investigation purposes – Section 107 BNSS governs attachment of properties deemed to be proceeds of crime, requiring judicial oversight through Magistrate’s orders – Debit freezing of bank accounts amounts to attachment rather than mere seizure and must comply with Section 107, not Section 106 – Impugned action without following this procedure is invalid [Paras 10-13].

Proceeds of Crime – BNSS Section 107 – Mandatory Judicial Process – Court explained that proceeds of crime as defined under Section 111(c) BNSS can only be attached by a Magistrate after issuing notice, hearing parties, and satisfying statutory conditions – Interim attachment possible only if delay defeats the object – In this case, police acted without initiating such process, rendering the action illegal [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Debit Freeze Order Set Aside – Petition Allowed – The order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery in C.M.P. No.739/2025 is quashed – The debit freeze imposed on the petitioner’s account is lifted – Police at liberty to proceed under Section 107 of BNSS if necessary [Para 14].

Service Law - Appointment to Reserved Post  – Scheduled Caste Reservation – Eligibility versus Suitability – Arbitrary Rejection – Petitioner Fully Qualified – The petitioner, an Associate Professor with over 32 years of experience and an extensive publication record, applied for the post of Professor reserved for SC category – He was the only candidate who attended the interview – Despite meeting all UGC eligibility standards, he was declared ‘not suitable’ without reasons – Held: The selection process lacked transparency, was arbitrary, and indicated a pattern of deliberate exclusion of SC candidates – Petitioner’s academic and research achievements far exceeded prescribed norms and warranted appointment [Paras 1–10, 43–45].

Selection Committee – Procedural Impropriety – Post-Facto Authentication – Void Process – The Selection Committee consisted of nine members, but only five attended the interview – Two additional members who did not attend were asked to authenticate the decision three months later – Held: Their endorsement without participating in the interview was invalid and made the selection process vitiated – Such conduct amounted to mala fide action and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny [Paras 44–47].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 16 Violation – Discrimination Established – The post had remained unfilled since the Centre’s inception in 2009, despite being reserved – Repeated non-appointment of SC candidates showed deliberate denial of opportunity – Held: Rejection of the petitioner was a breach of the right to equality in public employment under Articles 16(1) and 16(2) – The rationale of ‘none found suitable’ was a smokescreen to subvert constitutional policy [Paras 47–50].

Judicial Review – Power to Interfere – Court’s Role When Selection is Arbitrary – Held: While courts generally refrain from interfering with expert opinion of selection committees, this case justified intervention due to patent illegality, arbitrariness, and mala fides – The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the selection and direct appointment of the petitioner with full service and monetary benefits from 18.12.2023 [Paras 49–56].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Appointment Directed – The Court held that the petitioner was unjustly denied appointment despite fulfilling all qualifications and being the only candidate interviewed – The order rejecting his candidature as “not suitable” was declared arbitrary, opaque, and mala fide – The Court quashed the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 and directed the University to appoint the petitioner within two weeks with retrospective service and monetary benefits from the said date [Paras 55–57].

Intellectual Property Law – Trademark Infringement – Use of Registered Trademark by Intermediary – Dispute over IndiaMART listing of 'PUMA' as a drop-down option – PUMA SE (PSE) alleged counterfeit listings of its trademarked products on IndiaMART – Single Judge restrained IndiaMART from providing 'PUMA' as an option and ordered takedown of infringing listings – Division Bench analyzed extent of 'use' under Section 29 TM Act and safe harbour under Section 79 IT Act – Held: Drop-down listing alone not infringing if reasonable diligence followed – Injunction lifted for drop-down use, but takedown obligation upheld [Paras 1–4, 49–59, 94–96].

Trademark Use – Section 29 TM Act – Interpretation – Court held that listing 'PUMA' in seller registration drop-down constitutes "use" of trademark under Sections 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c)(i) of TM Act – However, such use, by itself, does not show dishonest practice unless it facilitates counterfeit trade or misleads consumers – Use not automatically actionable unless shown to unfairly benefit from or damage trademark's distinctiveness [Paras 21–23, 27, 63–66, 69–70].

Safe Harbour Protection – Section 79 IT Act – Applicability to IndiaMART – Court distinguished IndiaMART from traditional e-commerce platforms like Amazon – IndiaMART operates as B2B listing service akin to Yellow Pages – Prima facie found to meet intermediary criteria under Section 2(1)(w) IT Act – Held: Section 79(1) protection applies unless intermediary conspires or fails to act on specific knowledge of infringement – Absence of proactive conspiracy or inducement protected IndiaMART [Paras 58, 77–80, 81–83, 90–93].

Due Diligence Obligations – Rule 3(1)(b)(iv) IT Rules 2021 – Court found that IndiaMART must ensure sellers acknowledge IP compliance obligations prominently during registration – Sellers re-listing after takedown without scrutiny would breach due diligence standards – Court emphasized need for visible undertakings and a robust takedown policy to retain intermediary protection [Paras 84–89, 92].

Doctrine of Exhaustion and Descriptive Use – Court rejected overbroad interpretation of Section 29(4) TM Act as applied by Single Judge – Noted that mere drop-down use describing brand, without intent to mislead or misappropriate goodwill, could fall under permissible descriptive use – Emphasized that infringement must involve confusion or dilution beyond identification of category [Paras 36(b), 41, 64–67].

Distinction from Google LLC v. DRS Logistics and Amazon Case – Court found Single Judge’s reliance on Google LLC decision distinguishable – Google ad program involved adword manipulation, unlike IndiaMART’s passive drop-down menu – Amazon case involved brand ownership and product sale by platform itself, unlike IndiaMART’s third-party listing structure [Paras 60, 73–74].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Injunction restraining drop-down menu usage of 'PUMA' lifted – IndiaMART directed to maintain active takedown mechanism for counterfeit listings and ensure compliance with due diligence requirements – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 94–96].