Company Law – Winding Up – Stay of Winding Up Proceedings – Appeal against the orders of the Company Court allowing an application under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956, for a permanent stay on the winding up of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd. – Company Court orders based on settlement agreements with workers and creditors, and compliance with interim directions – Held: Impugned orders failed to consider binding precedents, including earlier orders of the Company Court, Appeal Court, and Supreme Court rejecting similar applications – Principles governing discretion under Section 466 not applied – Orders set aside – Winding up proceedings revived [Paras 4, 10, 80, 91].

Evidence – Earlier Orders and Material Facts – Previous applications under Section 466 rejected with strong findings of bad faith and intent to acquire the company’s immovable properties at a throwaway price – Orders not adequately disclosed or considered in the impugned proceedings – Non-consideration of vital material vitiated the impugned orders – Held: Principles of public interest, commercial morality, and bona fide revival were ignored – First Respondent failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify stay of winding up [Paras 46, 51, 86, 89].

Principles of Law – Section 466 Discretion – Application under Section 466 must satisfy the Court that all proceedings in relation to winding up ought to be stayed – Principles include evaluation of bona fide intent, compliance with statutory obligations, and consideration of public interest – Past findings of the first and third Respondents’ intent to exploit the company’s properties for real estate purposes upheld – Mere settlement of creditors or workers insufficient to justify stay – Held: Impugned orders failed to apply these principles or address material issues [Paras 40-41, 61, 81, 84].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned orders dated 09 October 2023 and 21 December 2022 quashed – Winding up proceedings revived – Official Liquidator directed to resume control over company’s affairs and assets – First and third Respondents restrained from dealing with the company’s properties without court approval – No unconditional continuance of stay – Liberty granted to file fresh application under Section 466 upon full disclosure and compliance with law [Paras 91, 95-96].
 

Criminal Law - Adjournments – Excessive and Repeated Requests – Court’s Duty to Prevent Abuse of Process – Repeated adjournments sought by the petitioner/accused for leading defence evidence were granted, including a final opportunity on 11/11/2024 – Despite this, no evidence was produced on 21/12/2024 – Held: The petitioner’s conduct was aimed at delaying proceedings, and the order of the trial court closing the defence evidence is proper and justified [Paras 4-6, 9].

Fair Trial – Right to Lead Defence Evidence vs. Timely Justice – While the right to lead defence evidence is a fundamental component of a fair trial, it cannot be used as a tool to delay justice – The petitioner’s repeated failure to comply with court orders to produce defence evidence demonstrated gross negligence, justifying the closure of his right to lead evidence [Paras 7, 9].

Judicial Responsibility – Addressing Adjournment Culture – Courts have a duty to discourage adjournments granted in a mechanical or routine manner, which harm the justice delivery system – Reiterating the principles in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Court emphasized the need to avoid delays that erode public trust in the judicial process and undermine the rule of law [Paras 7-8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Speedy Remedy Undermined by Delays – The petitioner’s dilatory tactics in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act undermined the efficacy of the Act, which is designed to provide a speedy remedy – Held: The trial court rightly refused to tolerate delays that obstruct the purpose of the law [Para 10].

Decision: The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 21/12/2024, closing the petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence, is upheld.
 

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Second Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Legal Validity – The prosecutrix's father moved an application for recording her second statement under Section 164 CrPC, claiming that the earlier statement was false and implicating the applicant would amount to abuse of process – Held: While the law permits recording of multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC, such requests must not be used to negate or defeat the earlier statements, especially when not sponsored by the investigating agency – Application dismissed [Paras 6–10].

Section 164 CrPC – Role of Investigating Agency in Requesting Statements – Statements under Section 164 CrPC should ideally be recorded when sponsored by the investigating agency – Allowing unsponsored applications may derail the investigation and result in the misuse of the provision – Magistrates have discretion to reject such applications when unsupported by valid reasons – Held: The Trial Court rightly dismissed the application for recording the prosecutrix’s second statement [Paras 7–9].

Protection of 164 CrPC Statements – Sanctity of Evidence – Safeguards Against Misuse – Recording multiple statements under Section 164 CrPC should be exceptional and subject to proper safeguards – Repeated statements risk diluting the evidentiary value and sanctity of the process – Held: The Court must balance the legal rights of witnesses with the sanctity of investigation – The application for recording a second statement was rightly rejected by the Trial Court [Paras 6–10].

Judicial Caution – Statements Without Investigating Agency’s Sponsorship – Supreme Court Guidance – Following precedents from Jogendra Nahak v. State of Orissa and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that Magistrates should exercise caution in recording unsponsored statements under Section 164 CrPC – Held: The Magistrate was justified in rejecting the unsponsored application, as the investigating agency did not support the request for the second statement [Paras 7–10].

Decision: The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. The Trial Court's decision rejecting the application for recording the second statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC is upheld. The Court emphasized that statements under Section 164 CrPC must not be misused to negate earlier statements and should be recorded only in exceptional circumstances when supported by the investigating agency [Paras 10–11].

NDPS - Interim Custody of Seized Vehicle – Confiscation Not Automatic – Section 457 Cr.P.C. – Order Denying Custody Set Aside – The trial court erred in rejecting interim custody of the seized vehicle merely on the ground that it may be confiscated if the offence is proved – Confiscation is subject to trial and can only be ordered upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – At the interim stage, denial of custody is unjustified [Paras 4-5].

Ownership of Seized Vehicle – Non-Accused Owner Entitled to Custody – No Evidence of Involvement in Crime – The petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle, with hypothecation to Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited – He was not an accused in the case – Keeping the vehicle unused at the police station or court premises would lead to deterioration – Held, the rightful owner is entitled to interim custody subject to conditions ensuring production of the vehicle when required [Paras 5-6].

Trial Court’s Order – Lack of Proper Legal Reasoning – Erroneous Interpretation of Confiscation Law – The trial court incorrectly presumed that the vehicle would necessarily be confiscated – Confiscation arises only upon conviction, not at the stage of investigation or trial – Held, the trial court’s reasoning was legally flawed, and interim custody should have been granted [Paras 4-6].

Decision: The criminal revision case is allowed, and the trial court’s order is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner upon execution of a self-bond for the vehicle’s value, as assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, along with two sureties of like amount. The petitioner must also execute an undertaking not to alienate, transfer ownership, or make any physical modifications to the vehicle. Further, the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the trial court until the final disposal of the case.
 

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – The respondent-husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing that the appellant-wife displayed unruly behavior, threatened suicide, and created disturbances at the matrimonial home – The appellant denied these allegations and, in turn, claimed that she was subjected to physical abuse and forced to consume poison – The Family Court found that the allegations of cruelty were established and granted divorce – Held: Findings of cruelty by the Family Court were justified based on evidence presented, and no interference is warranted [Paras 2.2, 5-6].

False Allegations – Filing of Section 498-A IPC Case – Impact on Divorce – The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent and his family after the filing of the divorce petition – The respondent and his parents were acquitted – The High Court, relying on Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 SC) and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013 SC), held that false allegations leading to acquittal amount to mental cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce [Paras 2.2, 6].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Period of Separation – The parties had been separated for 23 years since 2001, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down – Relying on Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2003 SC) and Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985 SC), the High Court observed that prolonged separation is a strong indicator of irretrievable breakdown, which is a valid ground for divorce – Held: The appeal lacks merit, as the long separation further justifies the decree of divorce [Paras 7-9].

Alimony – Right of Wife to Withdraw Maintenance Amount – The Family Court had ordered alimony, which was deposited by the respondent – The High Court directed that the appellant-wife is permitted to withdraw the amount from the Family Court, Vadodara – Held: The respondent’s obligation towards alimony remains intact [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Divorce Granted on Grounds of Cruelty – Wife Permitted to Withdraw Alimony from Family Court – The Family Court’s findings were upheld, as the allegations of cruelty were supported by evidence – The long separation and the false criminal complaint further justified the decree of divorce [Paras 9-10].
 

Service Law – Temporary Employees – Right to Continue Till Work Exists – The petitioners, engaged as temporary employees in various judicial districts of Punjab, sought regularization of their services – The Court noted that while regularization had been rejected in similar cases (Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019), the petitioners had been continuously working without any interim relief – Held: Petitioners to be allowed to continue working till their posts exist, subject to satisfactory performance [Paras 1-5].

Replacement by Another Temporary Employee – Prohibited – The respondents were directed not to replace the petitioners with another set of temporary employees on similar terms – However, the Court clarified that regular employees could be appointed against these posts as per law – Held: Temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of temporary employees, ensuring continuity of employment [Paras 6-7].

Maternity Leave – Unlawful Termination – Reinstatement Ordered – One of the petitioners, Balvir Kaur, was terminated while on maternity leave – The Court held that curtailing sanctioned maternity leave to terminate service was illegal and violative of employment rights – Held: Petitioner entitled to salary for the entire maternity leave period, and termination would take effect only after completion of maternity leave [Paras 8].

Petitions Disposed Of – The Court refused to grant regularization but allowed continued employment till work exists – Specific relief granted to petitioner Balvir Kaur for wrongful curtailment of maternity leave – Held: Arrears of salary for maternity leave to be paid within eight weeks; no interim relief for others seeking regularization [Paras 10].

Service Law – Promotion During Punishment Period – Eligibility Criteria – The respondent was awarded a penalty of stoppage of two increments for 30 months ending on 16.12.2017—The appellant bank reverted his promotion on the ground that he was ineligible on the date of initial promotion (14.08.2017)—Held: While an employee cannot be promoted during the currency of a penalty, once the penalty period ends, he is entitled to fresh consideration—The Promotion Committee must reassess his case based on his record as of 17.12.2017—Bank’s action of denying him promotion thereafter was unjustified—Single Judge’s order modified [Paras 25-27].

Promotion Policy – Prospective Application of New Rules – Applicability to Past Cases – The appellant relied on its 2018-19 Promotion Policy, which set 1st April as the cut-off date for eligibility—Held: The said policy was introduced prospectively and was inapplicable to promotions for 2017-18—The eligibility for promotions prior to 2018-19 must be assessed under the policy applicable at that time—Single Judge correctly held that the respondent should have been considered post 17.12.2017 [Paras 22-23].

Sexual Harassment Inquiry – Impact on Promotion – Validity of Reversion – The respondent was penalized based on a sexual harassment inquiry before the merger of his bank with SBI—After promotion, he was reverted on the ground that his punishment period was still active—Held: Though punishment bars promotion during its subsistence, a fresh consideration after its expiry was necessary—The bank’s decision to disregard the respondent’s promotion eligibility for subsequent years was arbitrary and violative of service rules [Paras 4-6, 27].

Judicial Interference in Promotion Matters – Scope of Court’s Power – Courts should not directly grant promotions but can direct reconsideration—Held: The High Court erred in granting promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017—Instead, the bank must now assess the respondent’s case for promotion from that date, ignoring the expired penalty—Promotion, if granted, will carry only notional benefits without arrears [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Impugned order modified – The respondent's promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017 is set aside – The appellant bank directed to reconsider his case for promotion from that date, ignoring the penalty – If found fit, promotion shall be granted with notional pay fixation but no arrears – Compliance to be ensured within three months – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 29-31].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Recovery of Possession – Arrears of Rent – Suit Allowed – Plaintiff, a registered Sangam, sought recovery of possession of a marriage hall and movables (furniture and utensils) leased to the defendant, along with arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits – Defendant admitted tenancy but failed to pay fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal and did not vacate the premises despite termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Plaintiff proved ownership and entitlement to possession through oral and documentary evidence – Defendant failed to rebut claims of arrears or establish the existence of a valid lease – Civil suit allowed with costs, ordering ejectment and payment of arrears and damages [Paras 18–24].

Fair Rent – Use and Occupation – Damages and Interest Awarded – Plaintiff claimed arrears of ₹2,17,000/- for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022 and sought damages of ₹1,50,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of immovable and movable properties – Defendant failed to prove payment of rent or justify continued possession – Held: Fair rent of ₹1,00,000/- per month for the building, as fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal in prior proceedings, accepted as damages for unauthorized occupation – Additional rent of ₹25,000/- for movables allowed – Plaintiff entitled to arrears with 6% interest and mesne profits [Paras 23–24].

Lease Agreement – Termination Notice – Applicability of Rent Control Act – Lease initially governed by written agreements, later continued orally after expiry in 2010 – Rent Control proceedings initiated by both parties were nullified on technical grounds as the lease was composite (building and movables) – Plaintiff subsequently issued termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Termination notice valid, and defendant had no right to continue possession post-expiry of the lease [Paras 20–23].

Procedural Delays – Defendant’s Conduct – Applications to Reopen Evidence Dismissed – Defendant sought to reopen and recall plaintiff's witness after multiple opportunities were granted for cross-examination – Defendant repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to file evidence or produce documents despite adjournments – Held: Defendant’s conduct amounted to abuse of process, justifying rejection of applications to reopen evidence – Plaintiff’s evidence remained uncontroverted [Paras 17, 19].

Decision: The Civil Suit is allowed with costs - Defendant directed to vacate and deliver possession of the schedule ‘A’ property (immovable property) and return the schedule ‘B’ property (movables) to the plaintiff immediately - Defendant directed to pay ₹2,17,000/- as arrears of rent for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization - Defendant directed to pay ₹1,50,000/- per month (₹1,25,000/- for the immovable property and ₹25,000/- for the movables) from the date of the suit till delivery of possession.
 

Trademark Infringement – No Deceptive Similarity – "BundlePe" & "LatePe" Not Confusingly Similar to "PhonePe" – Plaintiff alleged that defendants' marks "BundlePe" & "LatePe" were deceptively similar to "PhonePe" and likely to confuse consumers – Held: The word "Pe" is not inherently distinctive and is commonly used in digital payments – Defendants' marks contain distinct prefixes, making them visually and phonetically different – No likelihood of consumer confusion – No infringement established [Paras 13-14].

Passing Off – Lack of Consumer Confusion – No Misrepresentation – Plaintiff claimed that defendants were misrepresenting their services as being associated with PhonePe – Held: Defendants' services differ from plaintiff’s – No substantial evidence of actual consumer confusion – Mere phonetic similarity of "Pe" does not constitute passing off – Claim rejected [Paras 15].

Trademark Dilution – No Evidence of Harm – Common Use of "Pe" in Industry – Plaintiff contended that the use of "Pe" in "BundlePe" & "LatePe" diluted the distinctiveness of "PhonePe" – Held: "Pe" is commonly used in the fintech industry (e.g., Google Pay, Paytm) – No exclusive rights over the word "Pe" – No proof that defendants' use of "Pe" weakened the plaintiff’s brand identity – No dilution established [Paras 21].

Domain Name Dispute – No Consumer Confusion – No Injunction Granted – Plaintiff sought injunction against defendants from using "bundlepe.com" & "latepe.in" – Held: The domain names contain distinct prefixes differentiating them from "PhonePe" – No substantial evidence of consumer confusion or damage – No injunction granted [Paras 18].

Well-Known Trademark – "PhonePe" Not Recognized as a Well-Known Mark – Plaintiff sought declaration of "PhonePe" as a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg) & Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act – Held: Common use of "Pe" in the digital payment industry diminishes its exclusivity – "PhonePe" does not meet the threshold for well-known status – Claim rejected [Para 20].

Jurisdiction – Suit Maintainable in Madras High Court – Defendants challenged jurisdiction, arguing lack of cause of action in Chennai – Held: Plaintiff has a branch office in Chennai – Defendants’ services accessible in Chennai via digital platforms – Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act permits jurisdiction where plaintiff carries on business – Suit maintainable [Para 12].

Use of "Pe" – No Exclusive Right Over a Generic Term – No Infringement – Plaintiff argued that "Pe" was an essential part of its brand identity – Held: "Pe" is a transliteration of "Pay" in Hindi and is commonly used – Rule 28 of the Trade Marks Rules allows transliteration between Hindi & English – No exclusive monopoly over "Pe" – Defendants’ use does not infringe plaintiff’s rights [Para 22].

Damages & Account of Profits – No Proven Financial Loss – Claims Rejected – Plaintiff sought ₹10,00,000 as damages and an account of profits – Held: No evidence of financial loss or unjust enrichment by defendants – No trademark infringement or passing off established – No damages or accounting ordered [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Plaintiff failed to establish trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, or consumer confusion – No injunction granted – No damages awarded – Plaintiff not entitled to reliefs sought.