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].

Criminal Law - Quashment of FIR - Prevention of Corruption Act – Grant of Building Permissions – The petitioners, including municipal officers and a company director, were accused of granting and benefiting from building permissions in contravention of municipal laws – The charge sheet alleged that permission for a commercial-cum-residential building was granted improperly, bypassing the master plan’s provisions, and violating the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam – Held: The court found no evidence of bribery or undue advantage between the municipal officers and the company director – Mere procedural irregularities in granting permissions do not constitute criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless accompanied by mens rea or illicit benefits [Paras 16-19].

Quashment of FIR – Criminal Conspiracy – The FIR alleged a conspiracy to grant illegal building permissions – However, the court held that without evidence of corrupt motives or unlawful enrichment, procedural lapses alone do not justify prosecution under Section 120-B of the IPC – The FIR was quashed as no offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act or IPC was made out [Paras 20-25].

Decision: FIRs quashed – The court allowed the petitions, quashing the FIRs and all subsequent proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, finding no criminal misconduct or conspiracy – The proceedings against all petitioners were terminated [Para 25].

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.
 

Service Law – Transfer – Allegation of Insubordination – Transfer Quashed – The petitioners, Assistant Managers in different branches of Indian Overseas Bank, challenged their transfer orders issued after a review meeting where one of the petitioners raised issues regarding UPI transaction delays – The bank alleged that the petitioners committed acts of insubordination by challenging the Regional Manager – The Court held that the transfers were issued in lieu of punishment without disciplinary proceedings, violating the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 16(1), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Held: The transfer orders were quashed as punitive actions disguised as administrative transfers [Paras 17-21, 28-32].

Punitive Transfers – Malice in Law – Lack of Disciplinary Action – The Court observed that, although the respondents contended the transfers were based on administrative exigencies, the timeline of events and the lack of any disciplinary proceedings indicated that the transfers were punitive in nature – The Court relied on Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India [(2009) 2 SCC 592] to hold that transfers made in lieu of punishment, without just cause, are illegal [Paras 21, 28-32].

Impact on Petitioners' Fundamental Rights – Violation of Transfer Policy – The petitioners contended that the transfers violated the bank's transfer policy, which requires an opportunity to improve performance before transferring staff for non-performance – The Court held that no performance issues were raised, and the transfers were not in compliance with the policy – It found the transfers to be arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights [Paras 12-15, 20].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Transfer orders quashed – Respondents directed to refrain from initiating further proceedings without following proper disciplinary measures [Para 32].

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].
 

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].
 

Criminal Law – Copyright Infringement – Registration Requirement – The primary issue in this revision application was whether the registration of copyright is mandatory prior to initiating criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act, 1957 – The applicant was accused of duplicating books published by Relx India Pvt. Ltd. without authorization – The trial court framed charges under Sections 63, 63B, and 65 of the Copyright Act, leading the applicant to challenge the framing of charges – The High Court held that registration of copyright is not mandatory for initiating criminal prosecution – The Copyright Act, unlike the Trade Marks Act, does not require prior registration of copyright to enforce rights under the law [Paras 9-14].

Search and Seizure – Allegations of Improper Procedure – The applicant challenged the legality of the search and seizure conducted at his premises, arguing that the process was improper and citing earlier judgments involving liaison with police authorities – The Court, however, found that the facts of the present case were distinct from those cited by the applicant and did not support the claim of procedural impropriety – It was noted that the applicant had been provided the opportunity to challenge these issues during cross-examination [Paras 15-16].

Power of Attorney – Authority to File Complaint – The applicant also argued that the first informant, Saxena, was merely a power of attorney holder and not the copyright holder, thereby questioning his authority to lodge the complaint – The Court dismissed this contention, holding that the law permits any person authorized by the copyright holder to initiate legal action, and the registration of copyright with the U.S. authorities was sufficient for this purpose [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Revision Application Dismissed – The Court found no merit in the applicant’s arguments regarding the mandatory nature of copyright registration or the alleged procedural irregularities during the search and seizure – The application for quashing the charges was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated [Paras 14, 16-17].

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 – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Witchcraft Allegation – Sections 302, 201 IPC – Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act – Appellant convicted for the murder of his sister-in-law, branded as a witch – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and alleged confession – Trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment – Appellant appealed, contending weak evidence, lack of eye-witnesses, and unreliability of confession and weapon recovery – High Court allowed appeal, granting benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence [Paras 9, 10, 11].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Weakness of Extra-Judicial Confession – P.W. 2 (informant and husband of the deceased) corroborated the FIR, stating his brother (the appellant) murdered his wife due to witchcraft allegations – However, extra-judicial confession relied on P.W. 6 (mother-in-law of deceased) and P.W. 7 (father-in-law) was not robust as it was made before police and not in front of credible witnesses – High Court deemed such confession weak and unreliable as per established legal standards [Paras 7, 11].

Circumstantial Evidence – Lack of Strong Chain – Recovery of Weapon – Tangi allegedly recovered from the appellant’s house with blood stains – However, P.W. 6 denied witnessing the recovery, and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) failed to establish the recovery’s link with the appellant’s confession – Court emphasized that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and inconsistent, failing to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Confession and recovery were insufficiently corroborated [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Homicidal Death Proven but Guilt Not Established – Autopsy confirmed lacerated injuries and cause of death as head injury – Death was homicidal, but lack of direct evidence and inconsistency in the recovery of the murder weapon undermined the prosecution's case – Court reiterated the need for stringent scrutiny in cases based on circumstantial evidence, citing principles from Kalinga v. State of Karnataka (2024) [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted due to benefit of doubt – Appellant to be released immediately if not required in any other case [Para 11].