Specific Relief – Grant of Specific Performance – Discretion under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act – Pre-Amendment Position – Appellant contended that the court was bound to grant specific performance if statutory conditions were met – High Court clarified that under the unamended Section 20 of the Act, courts retained discretion in granting specific performance, exercised judiciously – Appeal dismissed as the respondent had no title in the property, precluding performance of the agreement [Paras 18-21].

Partial Specific Performance – Applicability of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act – Appellant argued for part performance regarding residual rights – High Court rejected the claim, stating that the respondent lacked ownership, making the agreement unenforceable – Section 12 inapplicable as no part of the agreement could be lawfully performed [Paras 26-28, 30-31].

Possession and Protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act – Appellant sought relief under Section 53-A, claiming possession as part performance of the contract – High Court held that Section 53-A provides only a defense against eviction and does not establish a basis for specific performance – Relief denied [Paras 22-24].

Limitation – Clause in Agreement Allowing Deed Execution on Demand – Suit filed in 2007 based on refusal by the respondent to perform the agreement – High Court held that the cause of action arose in 2007, making the suit within limitation – Appellant's delay in asserting rights did not bar the suit [Paras 10, 17].

Alternative Relief – Claim for Damages – High Court observed that the appellant did not seek damages as an alternative relief, despite possession of the property for three decades – Failure to pursue this claim rendered the discussion academic [Para 32].

Decision:

The appeal (F.A.T. No. 47 of 2018) was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 by the Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 3500 of 2007. No costs were awarded.

Criminal Writ - Challenge to the opening of Class-B history sheets – Regulation 228 of U.P. Police Regulations – Procedural Irregularities – Impugned Order Quashed – Petitioners challenged the opening of Class-B history sheets approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida – The Court found that the order was passed without applying mind, merely approving the report of the Station House Officer, without assigning reasons or affording the petitioners an opportunity to object – Held: Opening of history sheets against the petitioners violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the impugned history sheets are quashed [Paras 19, 22-27].

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement of Fair Hearing – Violation of Article 14 – Even where natural justice is not explicitly provided under law, it must be read into provisions affecting personal liberty and rights – Opening of history sheets without providing an opportunity to object constitutes a violation of the right to equality under Article 14 – Held: Police authorities must provide citizens an opportunity to present objections before deciding to open history sheets [Paras 23-24, 26].

Surveillance and Fundamental Rights – Violation of Articles 19 and 21 – Class-B history sheets and resultant police surveillance were found to infringe upon the petitioners' rights to freedom of movement and privacy – Held: Mere implication in criminal cases, without evidence of habitual or professional criminality, does not justify subjecting individuals to perpetual surveillance under the pre-independence U.P. Police Regulations [Paras 25-26].

Constitutionality of History Sheet Provisions – Need for Guidelines – The Court emphasized that provisions under the U.P. Police Regulations were framed during the colonial era and do not align with the modern constitutional framework – Directed the State to amend guidelines to provide for mandatory opportunity of objection and annual review of history sheets [Paras 26-28].

Final Decision – Impugned history sheets against the petitioners quashed – State directed to issue revised guidelines for opening and reviewing history sheets to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 19, and 21 [Paras 27-28, 32].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating and Money Laundering – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The Applicants challenged the issuance of process under the PMLA and IPC, arguing that no criminal act was involved and the dispute arose solely due to delays in obtaining an Occupation Certificate (OC). The Court held that the contractual obligations between the parties were fulfilled, barring minor unfinished works, and payments were made as per mutual agreement. The dispute was deemed civil, not criminal. – Held: No cheating or money laundering established; process quashed. [Paras 17–38]

Territorial Jurisdiction – Invalid Order by Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri – The Court found that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the transactions and subject premises were situated in Malad. The complainant’s alleged meeting at Hotel Orchid, Vile Parle, was an afterthought to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station. – Held: Orders passed by Andheri Magistrate and actions by Vile Parle Police Station null and void. [Paras 42.3–42.7]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Absence of Proceeds of Crime – The Enforcement Directorate’s claim of "proceeds of crime" was rejected, as the amounts received by the Applicants were payments under contractual agreements that were substantially fulfilled. The Court criticized the ED for failing to consider evidence of compliance with agreements and acting without due diligence. – Held: No proceeds of crime or money laundering; ED’s attachment order set aside. [Paras 16–39]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Abuse of Process – The Court observed that the dispute was purely contractual, concerning delay in possession due to lack of an OC. The complainant filed civil suits for recovery of amounts, reinforcing the civil nature of the case. Criminal proceedings were deemed a misuse of the legal process. – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed; exemplary costs imposed on complainant and ED. [Paras 36–42.10]

Decision: Criminal proceedings quashed. Process issued under IPC and PMLA is set aside. Attachment of properties by ED is cancelled. Exemplary costs imposed on the complainant and ED.
 

Service Law - Challenge to the disciplinary proceedings - Judicial Review – Departmental Proceedings – Limited Scope of Court’s Intervention – The petitioner challenged the findings of the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty of compulsory retirement awarded – Held: Judicial review is limited to examining whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and applicable regulations, and whether the findings are based on evidence – Interference with findings of fact in disciplinary inquiries is restricted to instances of perversity, procedural irregularity, or malafide conduct [Paras 11-14].

Proportionality of Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality Applied – The petitioner alleged that the punishment of compulsory retirement without service benefits was disproportionate to the charges proved – Held: The absence of allegations like misappropriation of funds or personal financial gain by the petitioner differentiates this case from more severe misconduct – The penalty imposed is excessive and disproportionate, necessitating judicial interference – Directions issued to reconsider the quantum of punishment [Paras 15-22].

Principles of Natural Justice – Fair Opportunity to Respond – Petitioner contended that relevant documents and evidence were not provided during the inquiry, affecting his ability to present an adequate defense – Held: The inquiry adhered to procedural fairness, and the petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to present his defense – No procedural infirmity warranting interference in the findings of the inquiry was found [Para 14].

Parity in Punishment – Inconsistent Approach by Bank Disciplinary Authority – The petitioner highlighted instances where employees accused of more serious misconduct were awarded lesser penalties – Held: While parity in punishment cannot be claimed as an absolute right, inconsistency in disciplinary measures reflects arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion – Bank must ensure consistency in disciplinary decisions to uphold the principles of fairness and equality [Paras 16, 21].

Reconsideration of Penalty – Punishment Reviewed for Disproportionality – Court held that the penalty of compulsory retirement not only terminated the petitioner’s career abruptly but also deprived him of financial and service benefits – A more measured penalty would uphold discipline while mitigating undue hardship on the petitioner – Matter remanded for reconsideration of penalty, with the court directing that no penalty of compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal be imposed [Paras 22-23].

Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed. The penalty of "compulsory retirement without service benefits" was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the penalty in accordance with law. The court directed that any fresh penalty imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of charges, and penalties of compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal from service should not be imposed.
 

Bail Application – Repeated Petition – No Substantial Change in Circumstances – The petitioner, facing charges under multiple sections of the BNS, filed a third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS—Previous bail applications had been dismissed—Petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantive change in circumstances—Held: Once a bail application has been rejected on merits, a subsequent bail plea without new grounds amounts to an abuse of process – Decision: Bail denied [Paras 5, 18].

Cyber Crime – Sextortion – Organized Blackmailing Racket – The complainant, a 73-year-old doctor, was blackmailed into paying ₹1.34 crore after being manipulated into an explicit video call—Petitioner’s husband allegedly part of the syndicate—Recovery of ₹6 lakhs from petitioner’s residence—Held: Petitioner’s role in laundering extorted money through bank accounts establishes prima facie involvement – Decision: Bail denied [Paras 8-11].

Cyber Crime and Sextortion – Growing Threat and Public Interest Considerations – Sextortion and digital blackmail have become a widespread cybercrime—Involvement of organized syndicates operating across different states—Held: Courts must adopt a strict approach to prevent misuse of digital platforms for blackmail and cyber fraud – Decision: Bail denied [Paras 11-13].

Evidence – Digital and Financial Trail – Prima Facie Guilt – Investigation revealed a trail of transactions linking the petitioner to the crime—Digital records, communication logs, and financial transactions showed active participation—Held: Strong prosecution evidence and absence of false implication established prima facie involvement of petitioner – Decision: Bail denied [Paras 13-17].

Parity with Co-Accused – Juveniles Granted Bail – Not Applicable – Petitioner sought parity with two juvenile co-accused who had been granted bail—Court distinguished juveniles from an adult accused—Held: Juvenile Justice Act applies differently to minors; petitioner cannot claim parity – Decision: Bail denied [Para 3].

Impact of Bail on Investigation – Risk of Tampering with Evidence – Given the organized nature of the crime, release of petitioner could impede investigation—Risk of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence—Held: Releasing petitioner would be prejudicial to justice and public interest – Decision: Bail denied [Para 14].

Decision: The High Court dismissed the third bail application, citing the absence of any new grounds justifying reconsideration. The Court emphasized the seriousness of cyber sextortion crimes and the need for deterrence. Petitioner’s role in the laundering of extorted money and connection to an organized cyber crime syndicate justified continued custody.
 

Taxation Law - Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act  - Transfer Pricing – Use of Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) Rates as External CUP – IEX Rates Not Comparable to SEB Rates – The Revenue challenged the ITAT’s decision to reject IEX rates as a comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) for determining ALP under Section 80IA(8) of the Act for electricity transferred from the Assessee's captive power units to non-eligible units – Held: IEX rates are unreliable as the transactions differ materially from SEB transactions in terms of predictability, reliability, and terms of supply – The IEX is a short-term trading platform for surplus electricity with high price volatility, whereas SEB transactions represent regulated, continuous supply agreements – ITAT rightly applied SEB rates as appropriate CUP for benchmarking the electricity transfer [Paras 46-53].

Market Value under Section 80IA(8) – Applicability of SEB Rates – Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited (2023), market value under Section 80IA(8) refers to the price at which SEBs supply electricity to industrial consumers, as it reflects an open market rate – Rates at which electricity is traded on IEX cannot qualify as market value under the CUP method due to inherent differences in the nature of transactions – ITAT correctly upheld SEB rates as internal CUP for benchmarking electricity transfers from eligible units [Paras 54-59].

Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method – Product and Transaction Comparability – For the CUP method to be valid, the tested transaction and comparable uncontrolled transaction must exhibit a high degree of similarity – IEX transactions involve electricity traded on spot markets for short-term needs, whereas SEB transactions involve regulated, continuous supply for industrial consumers – Material differences make IEX transactions unsuitable as CUP – ITAT rightly relied on SEB rates, which share sufficient comparability with captive unit transactions [Paras 42-56].

Judgment and Outcome – The High Court upheld ITAT’s findings, affirming that the Assessee had correctly benchmarked power transactions using SEB rates – Deletion of TP adjustment of ₹26.52 crores was justified – Questions of law answered in favor of the Assessee – Appeal dismissed [Paras 60-61].
Decision: Appeal dismissed – ITAT’s decision upheld – Revenue’s proposed adjustment of ₹26.52 crores deleted.
 

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].

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.
 

Service Law – Discrimination in Allowances – Parity with Police Personnel – Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioners, Warders and Head Warders under the Home (Jail) Department, were initially granted Kit Maintenance Allowance and Ration Money Allowance under the 15th June 2017 notification, similar to police, fire, and forest personnel – However, subsequent enhancement of these allowances for police personnel was not extended to them – The matter was reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister on 7th October 2021, wherein uniformity in allowances was recommended – Despite this, the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, rejected the proposal without assigning any reason – Held: Such exclusion is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Direction issued to extend the revised allowance benefits to all Warders and Head Warders with immediate effect [Paras 8-11] – Writ petition allowed.

Service Law – Retrospective Benefits – Claim for Arrears – Rejected – Petitioners sought arrears of enhanced allowances from 18/01/2020 and 26/04/2022 – Court held that since they approached belatedly, they were not entitled to arrears – However, direction issued for future implementation by February 2025 [Paras 12-14] – Held: No arrears shall be granted, but enhanced benefits to be implemented prospectively – Writ petition partly allowed.

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed with Directions – Government directed to extend revised Kit/Dress Allowances (₹7,500/- per annum) and Ration Money Allowance (₹2,000/- per month) to all Warders and Head Warders by end of February 2025 – No arrears granted as petitioners approached belatedly – Judgment declared as Judgment in rem, ensuring benefits to all similarly situated personnel [Paras 15-16].