Pre-Institution Mediation – Compliance Requirement – Defendant sought rejection of the plaint for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Held, whether urgent interim relief is contemplated must be assessed based on the plaint’s pleadings – Plaintiff’s contemplation of urgent interim relief justified due to alleged trademark infringement – Application dismissed [Paras 1-40].

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off – Plaintiff alleged infringement of its registered trademark “CHEMCO” and sought permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant – Plaintiff demonstrated long-term use and goodwill associated with the trademark – Delay in filing suit after initial cause of action addressed – Court acknowledged the plaintiff’s right to seek urgent interim relief given the nature of intellectual property rights and potential consumer confusion [Paras 20-33].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court’s interpretation in Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited and Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi emphasized the mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation – Court concluded that the plaintiff had not engaged in clever drafting or falsehood to create an illusion of urgent interim relief [Paras 14-39].

Decision: Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Interim Application for Lodging No. 23077 of 2023 to be taken up for consideration [Para 40-41].

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Improper Service of Summons – Petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC claiming he was never served properly, citing incorrect address in plaint – Trial court and appellate court dismissed application and appeal, respectively – High Court examined the records and found petitioner was duly served at the same address during execution proceedings – No explanation provided for delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 even after admitted date of knowledge [Paras 1-7].

Date of Knowledge – Delay and Limitation – High Court noted that even if the date of knowledge is accepted as 14.05.2012, application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed after more than a year without any explanation or request for condonation of delay – Emphasized importance of timely action and proper procedural compliance [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Court found no merit in the petition due to lack of explanation for delay and proper service of summons during execution proceedings – No illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders [Paras 6-7].

Service Law – Reinstatement – Concealment of Material Facts – Appeal by the State against reinstatement order granted to respondent who had resigned under alleged threat. Court finds material concealment by respondent regarding previous writ petition dismissals and rejections of representation by Police Headquarters – Appeal allowed, setting aside impugned judgment – Observations on litigant’s duty to disclose all material facts and consequences of suppression [Paras 1-17].

Litigant Conduct – Duty of Disclosure – Emphasizes the importance of full and honest disclosure by litigants seeking equitable relief from writ courts – Misrepresentation or suppression of facts seen as abuse of judicial process – Cites Supreme Court rulings highlighting consequences for misleading the court [Paras 13-16].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Principles – Discusses the equitable nature of writ remedy and the requirement for clean hands by petitioners – Court underscores that litigants must present all relevant facts truthfully and fully to seek court’s intervention [Paras 16-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Directions for the State to consider the respondent’s engagement against a suitable post considering her background and previous service [Para 19].

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 482, 427(1) of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought direction for concurrent running of sentences imposed in two separate NIA cases – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. – Held, offences committed by petitioner in two separate cases cannot be considered part of the “same transaction” – Maximum sentence not awarded by trial courts – Offences under UAPA are grave, impacting national security and societal harmony – Consecutive running of sentences upheld. [Paras 1-51]

Role of Petitioner in Criminal Conspiracy and Terrorist Activities – Convictions in separate cases for raising funds and conspiring to carry out terrorist attacks during Ardh Kumbh Mela and planning assassination of a political leader – Petitioner pleaded guilty to charges – Both cases involved distinct facts and separate trials – Petitioner found guilty of serious offences affecting national security. [Paras 24-29]

Guiding Principles for Exercise of Discretion under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. – Consideration of separate transactions, totality of sentences, gravity of offences, and societal impact – Judicial discretion to be exercised judiciously, not mechanically – Concurrent running of sentences not favored in cases involving serious offences with wide societal impact. [Paras 20-23, 35-47]

Decision – Petition for concurrent running of sentences dismissed – Sentences in two NIA cases to run consecutively. [Para 51]

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Civil Revision against lower court orders dismissing application to set aside ex-parte judgment and decree – Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell against the petitioner – Ex-parte decree passed – Application to set aside ex-parte decree on grounds of non-service at correct address dismissed by trial court and appellate court – High Court held that the petitioner had knowledge of the decree as of 14.05.2012 but filed the application on 17.05.2013 – No explanation for delay provided – Application dismissed for lack of merit – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1-7]

Service of Summons – Address Discrepancy – Analysis – Held – Summons were served at the same address as mentioned in the execution petition, which the petitioner acknowledged – Petitioner’s contention of incorrect address found baseless – Delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC not justified by any evidence. [Paras 3-6]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court found no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the trial and appellate courts – Revision petition dismissed – No merit found in petitioner’s claims. [Paras 7]

Criminal Law – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to impugned order rejecting deferment of hearing on charge – Accusations of criminal conspiracy and corruption in Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 – Petitioner contends investigation incomplete and seeks delay until supplementary chargesheet against co-accused is filed – Learned Trial Court dismissed application, stating arguments on charge can be halted if further incriminating evidence is filed – Held, maintaining the impugned order with instructions for timely supply of supplementary chargesheet and documents – Ensuring fair trial and speedy proceedings – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Fair Trial – Rights of Accused – Section 207 Cr.P.C. – Emphasizes the importance of providing accused with all material collected by the prosecution – Ensures preparation of defense and arguments on charge – Held, accused entitled to additional documents filed against co-accused – Arguments on charge may be revisited based on new evidence – Directions for prompt provision and scrutiny of supplementary chargesheets. [Paras 17-20]

Decision – Impugned order upheld – Directions for timely supply of supplementary chargesheet and documents to accused – Emphasis on fair trial and adherence to principles of natural justice – Petition disposed of with instructions for expeditious proceedings. [Paras 22-25]

Family Law – Dissolution of Marriage – Appellant-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife – Family Court dismissed the petition – High Court upheld the dismissal, finding no substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion [Paras 1-30].

Cruelty and Desertion – Insufficient Evidence – Allegations of cruelty included harassment on petty issues, false accusations, and police complaints – Respondent alleged dowry demands, physical abuse, and forced abortions – High Court found both parties’ claims lacked corroborative evidence – No specific instances of cruelty or desertion substantiated by credible testimony [Paras 10-20].

Mediation and Settlement Attempts – Case referred to Mediation Centre, unsuccessful mediation – Despite prolonged separation and appellant’s offer of monetary settlement, irretrievable breakdown of marriage not recognized as a ground for divorce under current law [Paras 15, 27, 29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Appellant failed to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion with specific instances – Family Court’s order upheld – No error found in the Family Court’s detailed reasoning and judgment [Paras 30].

Pre-Arrest Bail – Custodial Death Allegations – Seriousness of Offences – Petitioner, a police officer, sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of wrongful confinement, assault, and custodial death of complainant’s mother. Judicial inquiry suggested suicide, but conflicting evidence, including post-mortem reports showing multiple injuries, led to the denial of bail – High Court emphasized severity of allegations and upheld judicial finding of prima facie case – Application for anticipatory bail dismissed [Paras 2-14].

Custodial Torture – Judicial Inquiry and Evidence – Inquiry by ACJM-II found evidence of suicide but complainant’s deposition and medical evidence indicated custodial torture – Court noted multiple anti-mortem injuries and contradictions in the inquiry report – Highlighted need for thorough investigation and accountability in custodial death cases [Paras 5-12].

Decision- Applications for pre-arrest bail are dismissed. Petitioners may seek regular bail upon surrender within four weeks, to be considered on merits without prejudice from this order [Para 16].

Administrative Law – Allotment of Government Accommodation – Writ of Mandamus – Petitioner, a National Political Party, sought a temporary housing unit from GPRA for office use until the allotment and construction of a permanent office. Respondents denied the request, citing acute shortage of GPRA accommodations and previous offers of alternate land. Held – National Political Parties are entitled to secure allotment of one housing unit from GPRA for a period of three years during which they are to construct a permanent office. Respondents directed to reconsider the request of the Petitioner and provide a detailed order within six weeks. [Paras 1-15]

Right to Temporary Office Space for National Political Parties – Analysis – Petitioner recognized as a National Party and thus entitled to temporary accommodation under the Compendium of the Allotment of Government Residences Rules. Previous offers of non-central land not relevant to temporary accommodation entitlement. The acute shortage of GPRA cannot be sole reason for denial. [Paras 12-14]

Decision – Grant of Temporary Accommodation – Court directed Respondents to reconsider and decide the Petitioner’s request for temporary office accommodation from GPRA within six weeks, ensuring detailed reasons are provided if denied. [Paras 14-15]