Patent Law – Inventive Step – Obviousness Based on Prior Art – Matter Remanded - The patent application claiming novel piperidine compounds with anti-cancer properties was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), referencing compounds from prior art D1 – The Court held that the reasoning was interlinked with non-patentability assessment under Section 3(d) and must be reconsidered after proper identification of the closest known substance – Remanded for fresh evaluation including analysis of enhanced efficacy data [Paras 3–4, 17–19].

Patent Law – Section 3(d) – New Form of Known Substance – Identification of Known Substance Mandatory – Objection Not Sustainable - The Controller failed to identify a specific ‘known substance’ in the prior art D1 against which the claimed compound was assessed – Citing DS Biopharma, the Court ruled that the absence of such identification deprived the applicant of an adequate opportunity to respond with comparative efficacy data – Rejection under Section 3(d) set aside [Paras 12–17].

Decision – Rejection Set Aside – Remanded for Fresh Consideration - The impugned order rejecting the patent was set aside – The matter was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh adjudication after providing the appellant a hearing and addressing all submissions – The fresh order must address patentability with clear identification of the known substance and evaluation of efficacy data [Paras 20–23].

Civil Law - Trademark Dispute – Objection to Jurisdiction – Commercial Courts Act Interpretation – Dismissed - Defendant challenged jurisdiction of Trial Court to hear trademark injunction suit on grounds that it should lie before Commercial Court due to nature of IPR dispute – Court held that Commercial Court jurisdiction only arises if suit involves a commercial dispute and the specified value is ₹3 lakhs or more – In absence of such valuation, Trial Court can proceed – Held: No presumption that all IPR cases must be valued above ₹3 lakhs; suit not barred by law [Paras 3–10, 15–16].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Limitations – Application Rejected - Court reiterated that rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power and can only be exercised if it is evident from the plaint that the suit is barred by law or discloses no cause of action – Held: Since valuation could not be conclusively disputed at threshold and cause of action was pleaded, plaint cannot be rejected [Paras 18–22].

Suit Maintainability – Trade Mark Act Section 142(2) – Not a Bar - Defendant’s claim that suit is barred under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 60 of the Copyright Act was rejected – Court observed that these provisions did not apply to the facts of the present case and cause of action was disclosed on plaint reading – Held: Suit for permanent injunction maintainable before civil court [Paras 4–5, 23].

Valuation in IPR Suits – Plaintiff’s Discretion Accepted – Undervaluation Allegation Rejected - Court reiterated principle that plaintiff as dominus litis has right to value the suit, subject to judicial scrutiny – In absence of material to show deliberate undervaluation, Court to accept plaintiff’s valuation at threshold – Held: Defendant failed to establish undervaluation; plaint valuation accepted [Paras 14, 16–17].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed - Court found no legal ground to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Dismissed revision petition and all pending applications – Suit to continue before Trial Court [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law - Custodial Death – Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148, and 120-B of the – Appeal Against Acquittal - Eyewitness Credibility – Acquittal Upheld – The prosecution alleged that the accused, including a police constable, were involved in the murder of an undertrial prisoner after taking him out of judicial custody – The two eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution were found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies, contradictions, delayed disclosure, and intoxication – Held: The trial court rightly disbelieved their testimony and the High Court declined to interfere with the finding [Paras 11–11.2].

Recovery of Weapons – Lack of Independent Corroboration – Evidentiary Gaps – The prosecution relied on the recovery of blood-stained weapons allegedly used in the offence – The High Court found the recoveries were made after 12–13 days, without independent witnesses, and the FSL report did not confirm human blood – Held: Such recoveries were doubtful and could not support the prosecution’s case [Paras 13–14].

Hostile Witnesses and Omissions – FIR and Testimonies Not in Sync – Several witnesses were declared hostile – Key omissions in FIR and contradiction in the statements of family members regarding timeline and threats – Held: Material inconsistencies and lack of credible motive weakened the prosecution’s version significantly [Paras 7–7.6, 15–16].

Scope of Acquittal Appeals – Reversal Only on Perversity or Illegality – The appellate court reiterated that interference in an acquittal is permissible only where the trial court's judgment is perverse, illegal, or ignores material evidence – Held: Trial court’s conclusions were based on plausible appreciation of facts and law, hence no interference was warranted [Paras 17–19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The High Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal of the accused as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – The surviving respondents were directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20–21.2].

Police Service – Dismissal for Absence – Prolonged unauthorized absence from duty – Plaintiff/constable dismissed for remaining absent from duty for extended periods – Departmental inquiry conducted, orders of dismissal confirmed by appellate and revisional authorities – Courts below upheld dismissal, noting absence of valid medical justification and procedural adherence – Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Procedural Compliance – Departmental Inquiry – Plaintiff’s claims of procedural lapses in departmental inquiry rejected – Inquiry and subsequent orders found to be in accordance with Punjab Police Rules – Courts emphasized the disciplined nature of police service and necessity for strict adherence to rules – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference – High Court’s jurisdiction in reviewing disciplinary actions – Upheld findings of lower courts absent wanton or arbitrary action by authorities – Precedent from Supreme Court and High Court cited to affirm dismissal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court affirmed – Orders of dismissal from service upheld [Paras 19-20].

Child Custody Law - Visitation Rights – Paramountcy of Child’s Welfare – Writ Dismissed – Petitioner challenged visitation rights on grounds of non-payment of maintenance and desertion by father – Held: Visitation right is independent of spousal disputes and hinges solely on welfare of the child – Denial of access without extreme justification is not permissible – Trial court’s order granting fortnightly visitation upheld [Paras 4-8].

Child’s Best Interest – Access to Both Parents Essential – No Bar from Pending Custody Petition – Held: Child is entitled to affection, protection and guidance from both parents – Visitation right not barred by pendency of custody petition under Section 26 HMA – Welfare of child remains overriding consideration over technical objections [Paras 5-6].

Maintenance Default – Not Sufficient Ground to Deny Access – Father’s Right to Meet Child Not Contingent – Held: Non-payment of maintenance does not nullify father's visitation rights – Visitation is a facet of child’s right to parental care, not a tool of enforcement in maintenance litigation [Para 7]

Judicial Approach – Allegations Between Spouses Irrelevant to Visitation Decision – Focus on Child’s Needs – Court emphasized that custody battles should not sacrifice the emotional and developmental needs of the child – Courts must weigh what serves best interests of the child, not ego disputes of parents [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted with Trial Court’s Visitation Order – Finding that the father’s access to child posed no harm or exceptional concern – Petition dismissed without costs [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Testing of Non-Pharmacopoeial Drug – Disputed Factual Matrix – Quash Denied - The Company (A1) challenged the testing method used to declare ‘Omnigel’ as ‘Not of Standard Quality’ claiming non-compliance with 2008 departmental guidelines – Court held the testing method and applicability of Rule 46 involved disputed facts to be adjudicated at trial – Complaint against Company not quashed [Paras 6(i)(g), 6(i)(h)].

Screening Committee – Procedural Compliance Established – Quash Denied - Allegation that complaint was filed without requisite approval by Screening Committee was rejected – Court noted documentary evidence showed due approval was obtained – Petitioners’ reliance on Lupin Ltd. case distinguished – No merit in procedural challenge [Paras 6(ii)(a)-(d)].

Delay in Filing Complaint – No Prejudice – Quash Denied - Petitioners alleged expiry of shelf-life of drug before complaint filing prejudiced right to re-analysis – Court held that since company failed to notify intention to controvert analyst report under Section 25(3), right under Section 25(4) was extinguished – Precedents in Brij Lal Mittal and Amery Pharma followed – No prejudice caused [Paras 6(iii)(a)-(g)].

Sanction – Not Mandatory for Offence Charged – Quash Denied - The complaint was not under Chapter IV-A of the Act; hence no sanction under Section 33M required – Even assuming sanction needed, its validity can only be tested during trial – Complaint not quashed on this ground [Paras 6(iv)(a)-(d)].

Managing Director – No Specific Allegations of Responsibility – Quash Allowed - The second accused (Managing Director) was prosecuted solely based on designation without any averment of being in-charge or responsible for business conduct – Company’s license identified specific technical staff responsible for manufacture – Applying Cheminova and Swati Ajay Piramal rulings, complaint against A2 quashed [Paras 6(v)(a)-(j)].

Decision – Company’s Petition Dismissed – MD’s Petition Allowed - Crl.O.P. No. 19832 of 2022 (Company) dismissed – Crl.O.P. No. 19643 of 2022 (MD) allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 7].

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry – Absence Without Leave – Major Penalty – Dismissal Justified – Petitioner was absent for 1220 days between 2004 and 2009 without leave – Contended that no inquiry report or oral evidence was provided and cross-examination opportunity was denied – Respondents argued procedural compliance and lack of sanctioned leave records – Held: Though procedural lapses occurred, petitioner failed to show prejudice or submit any defense or denial even in writ petition – Applying "test of prejudice" doctrine, dismissal upheld [Paras 2–13].

Suo motu - Sedition and Endangering National Unity – Public Remarks by Elected Official – Section 152 BNS – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Minister Vijay Shah’s comments equating a Muslim Army officer with terrorists were held as promoting separatist sentiments – Such statements were found to endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India – FIR under Section 152 BNS directed [Paras 2-6].

Communal Harmony – Promoting Enmity Between Communities – Section 196(1)(b) BNS – Inflammatory Language Criticised – Remarks aimed at Col. Sofia Quraishi held likely to disturb public tranquillity and promote religious discord – Held: Prima facie offence under Section 196(1)(b) BNS made out [Paras 7-8].

National Integration – Imputation Against Religious Class – Section 197(1)(c) BNS – Derogatory Assertion Attributed to Faith – By associating a Muslim Army officer with terrorists, the Minister’s statement seen as undermining the integrity and loyalty of a religious group – Court held this as likely to cause communal disharmony – FIR under Section 197(1)(c) BNS ordered [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Oversight – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Abuse of Free Speech by Public Officials – High Court initiated proceedings based on widespread media reports and public outcry – Directed DGP to register FIR immediately failing which contempt action to be considered – Next hearing fixed for compliance [Para 11].

Decision – FIR to be Registered – High Court Directed Registration of FIR under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) BNS against Minister Vijay Shah – Registrar IT to collect additional digital evidence – Matter to be monitored for compliance [Paras 11-12].

Civil Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Re-Presentation of Returned Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Suit Re-registered Without Amendments – Set Aside – A plaint once returned for lack of jurisdiction cannot be re-registered without incorporation of new facts showing jurisdiction – Held: The re-registration of the suit on identical pleadings without any amendment was impermissible in law [Paras 8-13, 18-20].

Cause of Action – No New Averments Made – Section 151 CPC Cannot Cure Jurisdictional Deficiency – The plaintiff re-submitted the plaint without introducing any new factual pleadings indicating the defendant carried out business within Jaipur – The application under Section 151 CPC merely annexed bills and invoices, which cannot substitute formal pleadings – Held: Lack of cause of action in the plaint rendered it unsustainable [Paras 9, 13, 19-20].

Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Test – Court Must Examine Only the Plaint – The High Court reaffirmed that only the averments in the plaint must be examined to assess cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 – Applications or annexures cannot replace substantive pleadings – Re-registration of plaint without jurisdiction was held to be legally unsustainable [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Discretion – Duty to Reject Unsustainable Suit – Previous Order Attained Finality – Held: The Commercial Court had no legal authority to re-register the same plaint without amendment after having already returned it – Judicial discipline required consistency in orders and adherence to earlier findings [Paras 17, 20, 23].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Order Quashed – The High Court quashed the Commercial Court’s order dated 23.02.2021 – Directed return of plaint to the plaintiff for filing before competent court – Connected suit (Other Original Suit No. 2/2022) also disposed accordingly [Paras 24-29].