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].

Muslim Law - Wakf Administration – Direct Management – Mismanagement and Irregularities – Resolution Upheld - Petitioner, elected as President/Mutawalli, challenged the Wakf Board’s resolution dated 11.05.2022 assuming direct management of the mosque – Allegations included non-maintenance of accounts, unauthorized construction of minara, and fund misappropriation – Held: Material on record showed persistent irregularities; assumption of management justified [Paras 6–14].

Natural Justice – Enquiry Conducted – No Violation Shown – Audit Report Access Not Essential - Petitioner contended denial of opportunity to peruse audit report – Court held that petitioner was given due notice and participated in enquiry – Audit-based action taken under Section 48 of Wakf Act, no mandatory requirement to supply copy unless specifically sought – No breach of natural justice found [Paras 12–16].

Mutawalli’s Responsibility – Cannot Deny Liability – Mismanagement During Tenure - Petitioner attempted to blame past administrations – Held: As Mutawalli from 10.11.2019 to 09.11.2022, petitioner bore duty to rectify and report financial irregularities – Continued payment for minara construction after takeover shows defiance – Special Resolution of 27.07.2022 removing committee went unchallenged [Paras 7–11].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Tribunal's Order Affirmed - The Waqf Tribunal's order upheld – Resolution assuming direct management deemed valid – Petition and connected CMPs dismissed without costs [Paras 17–18].

Land Acquisition – Challenge to Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquisition Upheld – Petitioners contended that the term “Multipurpose Scheme” was vague and not a valid public purpose under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Court held that "Multipurpose Scheme No.10" constituted a valid and specific purpose and satisfied the statutory requirements – Notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 were properly issued and published – Held: No vagueness or illegality in purpose of acquisition [Paras 14(i), 37-39, 54].

Opportunity of Hearing – Section 5A of the Act of 1894 – Compliance Found – Petitioners alleged denial of personal hearing under Section 5A – Court found that individual notices were served, and legal representatives appeared via advocates – Dispatch records, appearance registers, and Vakalatnamas produced – Held: Requirement of personal hearing and consideration of objections was duly complied with [Paras 14(ii), 29-30, 43-44].

Limitation – Declaration under Section 6 and Award under Section 11 – Proceedings Not Lapsed – Petitioners alleged that declaration under Section 6 was beyond one year from notification under Section 4 and that award under Section 11 was passed beyond two-year period – Court held that Section 6 declaration and Section 11 award were issued within prescribed timeframes from last publication dates – Held: No lapse under Sections 6 or 11A [Paras 14(iii)-(v), 31-32, 41-42].

Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 – Inapplicability – Petitioners argued deemed lapse due to non-payment of compensation – Court held Section 24(2) applies only where award predates 01.01.2009 by five years – Award in this case passed on 22.10.2009 – Held: Section 24(2) not applicable and compensation either paid or deposited with competent authority [Paras 14(vi)-(vii), 45-46].

Notice under Section 9 – Directory Nature – Non-compliance Not Fatal – Petitioners challenged proceedings due to alleged non-service of Section 9 notices – Court held that even if notices were not individually served, provision is directory in nature – Held: Absence of notice under Section 9 does not vitiate acquisition [Paras 14(iv), 48-49].

Discrimination and Equitable Treatment – Allegation Unsubstantiated – Petitioners alleged discriminatory treatment in exclusion of some lands – Court held no factual foundation or evidence to support claims – Held: No discrimination made out in land selection [Paras 14(viii)-(ix), 47].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petitions Filed Post-Award – Challenge Barred – Writ Petitions were filed in 2012, years after award passed in 2009 – Court held challenge was delayed without sufficient explanation and barred by laches – Held: Petitions not maintainable on account of delay [Paras 16(i), 50-53].

Final Decision – Acquisition Proceedings Found Legal and Valid – No Constitutional or Procedural Violation – The High Court held that acquisition proceedings were carried out in accordance with law, with compliance to statutory mandates and procedural safeguards – No grounds made out for interference – Held: All intra-court appeals dismissed [Paras 55-57].

Service Law – Withholding of Pension – Rule 3 Part III KSR – Action Held Arbitrary – Petitioner, a retired Principal of Government Engineering College, was denied pensionary benefits citing pending review petition against prior Supreme Court dismissal of SLP – Held: In absence of pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings, withholding pension violates Rule 3 of Part III KSR – State’s action amounted to harassment and was arbitrary and illegal – Fundamental rights under Article 14 and property rights infringed [Paras 6–7, 15–16].

Fundamental Rights – Enforcement under Article 226 – Maintainability of Petition under Article 227 Expanded – Though relief was sought under Article 227, Court invoked powers under Article 226 to enforce fundamental rights – Held: Constitutional courts can enforce fundamental rights even when petition is formally under Article 227, especially in face of manifest arbitrariness – Tribunal’s limited power to enforce rights distinguished from High Court’s broader constitutional mandate [Paras 12–14].

Administrative Law – Tribunal’s Jurisdiction vs. Constitutional Court’s Role – Doctrine in L. Chandrakumar Case Reaffirmed – High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction over Tribunal decisions under Articles 226 and 227 – Enforcement of fundamental rights is distinct from service dispute adjudication and remains exclusive to constitutional courts – Held: Tribunal lacks authority to enforce fundamental rights even though it may adjudicate violations [Paras 9–11, 14].

Judicial Review – Arbitrariness in State Action – Constitutional Check – Petitioner’s appointment as Vice Chancellor was statutory and not voluntary – Disciplinary action based on assumption of that post already quashed – Held: Delay in pension disbursement unjustifiable and reflects mala fide exercise of power – Court cautioned against misuse of state power to harass retired officers [Paras 1–3, 6–7].

Decision – Petition Allowed – State directed to release entire terminal benefits including pension within two weeks – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach Tribunal for interest claim – Exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction justified due to violation of constitutional rights [Para 16].

Service Law – Writ - Army Officer Dismissal – Refusal to Participate in Regimental Religious Rituals – Dismissal Upheld – Petitioner, a Christian Army officer, declined to enter the sanctum sanctorum of Mandir/Gurudwara during religious parades citing faith-based reasons – Held: His conduct constituted willful disobedience of lawful command under Section 41 of the Army Act and adversely affected military discipline and unit cohesion – Army’s action under Section 19 read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules is valid [Paras 1–5, 66–73].

Religious Freedom vs Military Discipline – Article 25 of Constitution – Restrictions Permissible – Held: Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict fundamental rights of Armed Forces personnel to maintain discipline – Refusal to participate in regimental rituals by Commanding Officer undermines esprit de corps and was rightly treated as misconduct – Army’s secular fabric is preserved while expecting uniform compliance with military customs [Paras 43–44, 55–65, 73].

Court Martial – Not Mandatory – Rule 14 of Army Rules – Disciplinary Action Valid – Court held that it was impracticable and inexpedient to conduct a Court Martial due to the sensitive nature of religious issues – Show Cause Notice was duly issued and proper procedure followed – No arbitrariness found in administrative termination under Section 19 of Army Act [Paras 74–84].

Judicial Review – Scope Limited in Military Discipline Cases – Military Leadership's Discretion Prevails – Held: Court must defer to military judgment in matters affecting unit cohesion and morale – Petitioner's insistence on prioritizing personal faith over command directives was rightly treated as indiscipline – Courts cannot second-guess military standards absent manifest arbitrariness [Paras 70–73].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Delhi High Court upheld the Army’s decision to dismiss the petitioner from service, holding that the disciplinary procedure was compliant with law, and refusal to participate fully in religious parades was a valid ground for administrative termination [Para 85].

Criminal Law – Challenge Illegal Arrest – Non-production Before Magistrate Within 24 Hours – Arrest Declared Illegal – The petitioner was detained at Delhi airport on 17.05.2025 at 17:30 hours and was produced before the magistrate only on 18.05.2025 at 22:45 hours – Court held this exceeds the statutory 24-hour limit under Section 58 of BNSS and violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution – Held: Petitioner’s arrest is vitiated and illegal [Paras 21, 24, 30].

Failure to Notify Grounds of Arrest – Section 48 of BNSS – Violation of Statutory Duty – Grounds of arrest were not communicated to any nominated person as mandated – Instead, the petitioner’s father, also a complainant, was wrongly informed – Held: This is a clear violation of Section 48 of BNSS and further renders the arrest illegal [Paras 26, 29].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and 22(2) – Right to Liberty Violated – Detention beyond 24 hours without magistrate’s sanction, and failure to inform nominated person of arrest, amount to breach of fundamental rights – Held: Continued custody of petitioner is unconstitutional – Immediate release ordered [Paras 30, 32].

Malafide Arrest – Familial Civil Dispute – FIR Lodged at Odd Hour – FIR filed post-midnight and Look Out Circular (LOC) issued same day – WhatsApp chats showed pressure to settle family dispute using custody – Held: Arrest made with undue haste, misuse of police process observed – However, no comment made on trial merits [Paras 25, 31].

Decision: Petition Allowed – Arrest declared illegal for non-compliance with Section 48 and 58 of BNSS and violation of Articles 21 and 22(2) – Petitioner ordered to be released forthwith – Observations confined to the arrest issue and shall not affect merits of the case [Paras 32–33].

Civil Writ – Employment Law - Recruitment Process – Eligibility Criteria – Non-Qualification in Preliminary Test – Appeals Dismissed - Appellants were not issued hall tickets for the 3rd level of Police Constable (Civil) recruitment test – Though they participated in 2nd level physical tests based on interim orders, they had failed the 1st level (preliminary written test) – Held: Interim participation did not grant right to claim further process participation – No equity can be claimed in light of binding directions in W.P. No. 6631 of 2023 and batch [Paras 3–8].

Binding Precedents – Compliance with Earlier Division Bench Orders – No Equity for Interim Relief - The Court emphasized that in earlier litigation (W.P. No. 6631 of 2023), it was made clear that appellants could not claim equity due to interim directions – Held: Single Judge rightly directed respondents to act per W.P. No. 6631 of 2023, which attained finality – No error in refusal to grant relief to appellants [Paras 6–8].

Examination Procedure – Sequential Qualification Mandatory – Deviation Not Permitted - As per recruitment notification dated 28.11.2022, only candidates qualifying in the preliminary test could proceed to subsequent levels – Held: Appellants were permitted to take 2nd level test under interim orders but failed to clear the first stage – Therefore, disqualification from 3rd level was justified [Paras 4–5].

Final Decision – Writ Appeals Dismissed – No Relief Granted - All three writ appeals dismissed – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions also disposed of [Para 9].

Civil Writ - Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Disagreement with Inquiry Officer – Show Cause Notice Deficient – Punishment Quashed - Petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer on charges related to supervision of school building construction – Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed minor penalty without stating reasons in show cause notice – Held: The second show cause notice failed to disclose tentative reasons for disagreement as required under Rule 15(10)(i)(b), rendering the process unfair and violative of natural justice – Punishment order quashed [Paras 6–17].

Natural Justice – Procedural Safeguard – Right to Representation Undermined - The show cause notice merely mentioned decision to punish without offering grounds for differing from Inquiry Officer’s findings – Held: Such notice was an “empty formality” that deprived the petitioner of meaningful opportunity to respond – Cited judgments in Ram Kishan v. Union of India, Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, and Yoginath D. Bagde to affirm requirement for reasons in notice [Paras 9–14].

Post-Retirement Status – No Remand Ordered – Punishment Set Aside - As the petitioner had already superannuated and the punishment was not enforced due to interim stay, Court declined to remand the matter – Final order dated 09.02.2016 quashed [Paras 17–19].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Punishment Order Quashed – No Remand - Writ petition allowed – Impugned order quashed – No costs awarded [Paras 18–19].

Civil Writ - Rehabilitation Policy – Eligibility of Minors – Cut-off Date Under 2015 Policy – Writ Petitions Dismissed - Petitioners were denied rehabilitation on the ground of being minors as on 01.01.2015 – Appellate Authority upheld ineligibility due to non-fulfillment of age and documentary criteria – Held: The 2015 Policy mandates that applicants must have attained 18 years of age by the cut-off date; absence of voter ID in qualifying years and reliance on documents post cut-off date rendered claims invalid – Court found no merit in the plea for relaxation based on subsequent documentation [Paras 58–62].

Rehabilitation Policy – Commercial Use of Jhuggi – Ineligibility under Clause 8 of Part B – Writ Petitions Dismissed - Petitioners’ claims rejected as their jhuggis were found to be used solely for commercial activities at the time of survey – Videographic evidence supported findings – Held: As per Clause 8 of Part B of the 2015 Policy, exclusive commercial use disqualifies applicants; mixed-use must be residential-cum-commercial with occupancy – Petitioners failed to establish residential use – Allotment rightly denied [Paras 63–67].

Survey Process and DUSIB’s Role – No Procedural Infirmity Found – Objection Overruled - Petitioners argued that DDA excluded DUSIB from survey and eligibility determination, vitiating process – Court held issue settled by prior judgment (Sanjeev Bhadra v. GNCTD) – Held: DDA, being the land-owning agency, acted within its mandate; DUSIB’s limited role as nodal agency does not invalidate the rehabilitation exercise undertaken by DDA [Para 57].

Decision – Dismissal of Petitions – Petitioners Held Ineligible – The Court found no merit in the factual or legal submissions raised in either category of petitions – Observing that rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy is conditional and not a fundamental right, the Court dismissed all writ petitions and related applications [Paras 62, 67–68].