Criminal Law – Defamation and Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which allowed a revision petition, setting aside an earlier Magistrate’s order that summoned the respondent to face trial for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC read with Section 120-B – Held: The Revisional Court correctly observed that as the respondent is a public servant, prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was required, as the complaint was filed while acting in discharge of official duties – The Revisional Court’s decision to set aside the summoning order is upheld, and the petition is dismissed [Paras 1, 3, 8, 10, 13, 14].

Defamation – Sufficiency of Evidence and Lowering of Reputation – Petitioner alleged that the respondent’s complaint caused him mental and financial loss, harassment, and lowered his social standing – However, court found that evidence provided by the petitioner and his witnesses only made general allegations without establishing that the petitioner’s reputation was lowered in the estimation of specific individuals – The evidence failed to satisfy requirements under Section 499 IPC, as the testimonies lacked specific claims of diminished reputation by any named person – Complaint did not establish prima facie commission of defamation, and the Magistrate’s order for summoning respondent lacked sufficient basis and application of mind [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12].

Official Duty and Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Respondent, as a public servant, filed a complaint regarding interference in an auction process, which was later closed as allegations were not substantiated – Revisional Court held that filing this complaint was part of respondent’s official duties, and protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. applies – Since there was no prior sanction from the State Government to prosecute the respondent, the Magistrate’s summoning order was invalid – Court affirmed that any act performed as part of public duty, even if ultimately dismissed, requires sanction for prosecution, per Section 197 Cr.P.C. [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Revisional Court’s order upheld – No grounds for interference as the order was within jurisdiction and well-reasoned – Complaint and subsequent order by Magistrate deemed legally unsustainable in absence of prior sanction.
 

Labour Law – Termination Without Enquiry – The case involved the termination of employees by M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. without conducting a formal enquiry – The Labour Court upheld the termination, and the Industrial Court dismissed the revision applications – The High Court held that even in the absence of a prior enquiry, the employer can justify the termination by leading evidence before the Labour Court – The employer has the right to prove misconduct based on the available evidence, even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the termination orders – The petitioners' misconduct, including participation in an illegal strike, preventing others from joining duties, and creating an atmosphere of terror, justified their dismissal [Paras 12-13, 25-27].

Evidence of Misconduct – Assault on Management – The petitioners argued that the employer introduced evidence of misconduct (assault on management staff) that was not specified in the termination orders – However, the Court found that such evidence was permissible, as it was connected to the alleged creation of an atmosphere of terror, which was mentioned in the termination orders – The Court ruled that the evidence of assault corroborated the broader allegations of misconduct and was relevant to the case – The Court concluded that the additional evidence did not exceed the scope of the original reasons for termination [Paras 30-35].

Illegal Strike – Participation and Obstruction – The petitioners contended that they did not participate in the illegal strike or prevent others from joining duties – The Court dismissed this argument, finding that the evidence, including testimonies and reports from management witnesses, sufficiently proved that the petitioners not only participated in the illegal strike but also obstructed others from returning to work and created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation – The Court cited the seriousness of such misconduct, which warranted dismissal without the need for further enquiry [Paras 36-38].

Employer’s Right to Lead Evidence – Justification of Termination – The Court reaffirmed the employer's right to justify termination by leading evidence in cases where no prior enquiry was held – The employer is allowed to present all relevant evidence before the Labour Court, even if it was not initially part of the termination orders – This approach aligns with established legal principles, as outlined by the Supreme Court in several cases – The Court rejected the petitioners’ challenge, emphasizing that the employer's right to lead evidence serves the interests of both parties by ensuring a fair hearing [Paras 13-17, 26-33].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments – It upheld the concurrent findings of the Labour and Industrial Courts that the termination was justified based on the proven misconduct – The petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement or back wages, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs [Paras 38-39].
 

Trade Marks Law – Opposition to Registration – The appellant, "M/s Abbott GmbH," opposed the registration of the mark "MEBUFEN" by respondent No.2, "M/s Meridian Medicare Ltd.," on grounds of deceptive similarity with their mark "BRUFEN" – The Registrar of Trademarks dismissed the opposition and granted registration to "MEBUFEN" – The appellant contended that "MEBUFEN" and "BRUFEN" were phonetically and structurally similar, particularly since both marks contained the common element "FEN," derived from the chemical "Ibuprofen" – The appellant argued that this similarity would likely confuse the public, especially given the identical medicinal nature of the products [Paras 1-6].

Deceptive Similarity – Analysis of Competing Marks – The Court analyzed the principles of deceptive similarity as laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and F. Hoffmann-LA Roche & Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd. – It reiterated that marks must be considered as a whole and not through a meticulous, letter-by-letter comparison – The Court noted that the common suffix "FEN" was derived from a non-proprietary name, "Ibuprofen," and thus could not be monopolized by the appellant – The marks "BRUFEN" and "MEBUFEN" were found to be visually, structurally, and phonetically dissimilar due to the distinct prefixes "BRU" and "MEBU" – The mere use of "FEN" in both marks was insufficient to establish confusion or deceptive similarity [Paras 6-12, 13-14].

Reliance on Previous Cases – Distinction from Appellant’s Precedents – The appellant relied on the judgments in Boots Company PLC v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., where competing marks were found to be deceptively similar – The Court held that those cases involved marks with clear structural and phonetic similarity, which was not evident in the present case – Therefore, those precedents did not support the appellant's case, as "BRUFEN" and "MEBUFEN" were not similarly confusing [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks – It concluded that the marks "BRUFEN" and "MEBUFEN" were not deceptively similar, and no confusion would arise in the market from their concurrent use [Paras 18-19].

Taxation Law - Transfer Pricing – Inclusion of Comparables – Functional Dissimilarity – Exclusion Ordered - The appeal raised the question of whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in including TCS E-Serve International Ltd., TCS E-Serve Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd. as comparables for ALP determination – The Tribunal upheld the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) decision, rejecting the appellant's argument of functional dissimilarity and brand value impact – Held: The comparables in question were functionally dissimilar due to brand value and large-scale operations, and thus should be excluded from the comparability analysis [Paras 2-10].

Arm's Length Price (ALP) – High Brand Value and Scale of Operations – Comparable Exclusion Upheld - TCS E-Serve Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd. were included by the TPO despite significant brand value and scale of operations – Following precedents set by the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Evalueserve Sez (Gurgaon) Pvt. Ltd. and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. BC Management Services Pvt. Ltd., such entities were excluded from comparability for having a competitive advantage not shared by the appellant [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The court allowed the appeal, holding that TCS E-Serve International Ltd., TCS E-Serve Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd. must be excluded from the list of comparables for the ALP determination for the Assessment Year 2010-11, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant [Paras 11-13].

Tender Process – Deviation from Tender Terms – Arbitrary Selection – The petitioner challenged the award of a tender for loading and transportation of coal, arguing that the respondents deviated from the tender conditions in selecting the final L-1 bidder through a random algorithm under the GeM Portal's General Terms and Conditions, instead of following Clause 25.2(B) of the tender document, which prescribes a "Reverse Auction" or submission of a revised price for final L-1 selection – Held: The terms of the NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) and Clause 25.2(B) override the GeM portal’s general conditions – The method of random selection of L-1 bidder through "Run L-1" was arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal [Paras 14-19].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference in Tender Matters – The court reiterated that while judicial review in tender matters is limited, it can intervene where there is arbitrariness, irrationality, or procedural impropriety – The random selection of L-1 bidder without following the prescribed tender terms constituted such impropriety, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 6-7, 19-21].

Decision: Petition allowed – The Letter of Acceptance dated 22.05.2024 issued in favor of respondent No. 4 is quashed – The respondents are directed to adhere to Clause 25.2(B) of the Tender Terms and proceed afresh with the selection of the L-1 bidder in accordance with the law [Para 22].

Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – Maintainability of Application for Rejection of Plaint – The petitioners (defendants) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint in a suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff) seeking declaration of title by adverse possession and injunctive relief – The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the suit had not yet been admitted, rendering the application premature – Held: Once a suit has been registered and notice has been issued to the defendant, an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. is maintainable, even without filing a written statement – Trial court erred in deeming the application premature, as registration and issuance of notice are sufficient to consider such an application [Paras 2, 9-10].

Right to File for Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – The petitioners argued that the trial court’s refusal to consider their application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. was contrary to law – Held: Defendants have a right to file for rejection of the plaint once the suit is registered and notice is served, irrespective of whether the suit is admitted – The trial court’s decision was against both factual findings and established law, necessitating interference by the High Court [Paras 3-4, 10].

Suit Based on Adverse Possession – Prerequisites for Maintainability – The respondent’s suit claimed title based on adverse possession and sought injunction – The petitioners contended that the plaintiff’s claim lacked legal foundation for adverse possession, thus warranting rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – Held: The trial court must examine the merits of the application for rejection of plaint to determine if the plaint discloses a cause of action under adverse possession [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Remand to Trial Court for Fresh Consideration – The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. afresh, after providing both parties an opportunity to be heard.
 

Anticipatory Bail – Grounds for Cancellation – Requirement of Misuse or Change in Circumstances – Dismissal of Petition - The petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent accused, alleging the trial court overlooked the gravity of fraud allegations involving a defrauded amount of Rs. 20 lakhs – Held: The High Court emphasized that cancellation of bail should only occur if there is evidence of misuse of bail, such as interference with investigation or witness intimidation, or a significant change in circumstances – Since no such misuse or legal error in the trial court’s order was demonstrated, the petition was dismissed [Paras 4-6].

Judicial Approach to Bail Cancellation – Personal Liberty and Judicial Restraint - The Court underscored that personal liberty is a fundamental right and should not be revoked capriciously – Courts should exercise caution in canceling bail unless there is clear misconduct or violation of bail conditions by the accused – Held: In the absence of concrete evidence of misuse of bail by the respondent, the request for cancellation of bail was declined [Paras 5-6].

Scope of Bail Proceedings – Distinction Between Bail Conditions and Financial Disputes - The Court observed that bail proceedings are not intended to resolve financial disputes but to ensure that legal conditions for granting bail are met – The existence of unpaid debt or dishonoured cheques is insufficient grounds for bail cancellation, especially when there is no demand for custodial interrogation – The Court reiterated that it is not the role of bail proceedings to enforce recovery of alleged financial losses [Paras 6-7].

Decision - The petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed, affirming that no significant legal flaw existed in the trial court’s grant of bail, and that the petitioner failed to show any misuse of bail by the respondent [Para 8].
 

Criminal Law - Double Jeopardy – Parallel Prosecution – Section 304-A IPC vs. Section 92 of the Factories Act – Quashing of Proceedings – The petitioners challenged the simultaneous criminal prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC alongside charges under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, for the same incident of a worker's death due to electrocution at the factory – Held: The prosecution under Section 304-A IPC is not permissible when proceedings under Section 92 of the Factories Act are already initiated – The Factories Act, being a special enactment, takes precedence, precluding parallel proceedings under the IPC for the same cause – The proceedings under Section 304-A were quashed to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 7, 10-14].

Factories Act Compliance – Prosecution Scope – The court reiterated that Section 92 of the Factories Act provides for comprehensive punishment, including imprisonment and fines for violations that result in death or serious injury – Simultaneous prosecution under general law (IPC) alongside the special provisions of the Factories Act violates the principle of double jeopardy and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, which prevents dual prosecution for the same offence [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Precedent – Referenced Cases – The decision followed the precedent set in Ananthakumar v. State of Karnataka, AIR Online 2019 KAR 565, which held that prosecutions under IPC and the Factories Act for the same incident cannot proceed concurrently – The court also referenced M. Zakir Ahmed v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine KAR 1234, and V. Revathi v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine KAR 567, emphasizing the legal bar against parallel proceedings [Paras 12-14].

Decision:

The Criminal Petition was allowed, and all proceedings in C.C. No. 260/2018 pending before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Raichur, were quashed. This decision rendered pending interim applications moot, leading to their dismissal.

Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC – Settlement in Main Case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Abuse of Process – Once the primary complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was amicably settled, and the complaint was withdrawn, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC was deemed an abuse of process – Held: FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 174-A IPC quashed as per precedent supporting such quashing when the main case has been resolved through compromise [Paras 3-7].

Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Previous Judgments in Similar Circumstances – Consistent Approach by Coordinate Benches – The Court referenced decisions in Baldev Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana, Ashok Madan v. State of Haryana, among others, which held that continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC in cases where primary complaints were settled would amount to an abuse of process [Paras 8-10].

Declared Proclaimed Offender vs. Proclaimed Person – Procedural Grounds – According to Section 82 CrPC, an individual can only be declared a proclaimed person, not a proclaimed offender, under the circumstances as per law – FIR quashed on additional procedural grounds regarding the appropriate categorization under Section 82 CrPC [Para 11].